Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

95 N.C. 471

Strickland v. . Strickland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1886

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1886-10-05

MotioN to correct a judgment, heard before Philips, Judge, at Chambers, in Greenville, Pitt county, on the 17th of June, 1886. This was a special proceeding, brought by the plaintiffs as next of kin, of P. K. W. Strickland, deceased, to obtain an account and settlement of his estate in the hands of the defendant, his administrator.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The court did not enter the judgment it intended to enter, nor that authorized by what appeared in the record. Such errors may be corrected at any time, and after a long while, upon motion, or the court may and ought to correct them ex mero motu as soon as it sees them. This is necessary and proper, to the end the record shall speak the truth. The object is to make the record show what the court, in fact, resolved, intended, and in contemplation of law did.” (Page 473.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Christisen v. Bartlett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1958

3 state decisions

1018861890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Merrimon, J.,

¶1 (after stating the case). It seems to us clear, that the Judge misapprehended the nature and pur *473 pose of the motion. It was not a motion to “ relieve a party from a judgment, order or other proceeding, taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” nor to correct an erroneous judgment properly so denominated, nor to correct or set aside a judgment for irregularity in the course of the action, commonly called an irregular judgment, but to correct a mistake of the Court made by its inadvertence, occasioned by the inadvertence of counsel in preferring the judgment for entry. There was no mistake of law or fact in the proceedings leading to and upon which it rested — the grounds of it had been properly settled as to the law and fact, as appeared in and by the record — there was simply a mistake in the entry — the Court did not enter the judgment it intended to enter, nor that authorized by what appeared in the record.

¶2 Such errors may be corrected at any time, and after a long-while, upon motion, or the Court may and ought to correct them ex mero motu as soon as it sees them. This is necessary and proper, to the end the record shall speak the truth. The object is to make the record show what the Court, in fact, resolved, intended, and in contemplation of law, did.

¶3 This in no wise conflicts with the case of Ruffin v. Harrison, 91 N. C., 399, cited by the Judge. The motion in that case was practically and in effect to obtain a rehearing of a matter that had been settled in the action by the Court. In it he said, “ This, of course, does not imply that the Court has not power to correct the entry of its orders, judgments and decrees, so as to make them conform to the truth of what the Court did in granting them, or to set aside an irregular judgment in a proper case.” The exercise of such power is essential, and it is warranted by the practice in all Courts. Leak v. Covington, 83 N. C., 144.

¶4 There is error. The judgment of the Judge must be reversed, with instructions to affirm that of the Clerk. To *474 that end, let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court according to law. It is so ordered.

¶5 Error. Reversed.

/95/nc/471 · .json · Public domain