HICKMAN
v.
FORT SCOTT

U.S. | 1891-10-26
No. 10
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice G-ray did not hear the argument, and took no part in the decision of this case.
141 U.S. 415 Supreme Court of the United States (1891) Caution
Also reported at: 35 L. Ed. 775 · 12 S. Ct. 9 · SCDB 1891-009 · 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2530
Cited by 47 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Hickman sought to modify the trial court's record after his case had been appealed and reversed, attempting to change the facts that were originally found to create a materially different case for appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed that such a modification was improper, holding that once a trial court's term ends, its final judgments pass beyond its control and cannot be altered except through proper legal remedies like writs of error or appeal, not through subsequent petitions to change the record.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan,

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the ease, delivered the opinion of the court.

In the original action upon the bonds held by Hickman, a jury having been waived by written stipulation of the parties, the Circuit Court proceeded to final judgment upon a special finding of facts. The judgment was the one the court intended to enter, and the facts found were those only which the court intended to find. There, is here no clerical mistake. Nothing was omitted from the record of the original action which the court intended to make a matter of record. The case, therefore, does not come within the rule, that a court, after the expiration of the term, may, by an. order nunc pro tunc, amend the record by inserting what had been omitted by the act of the clerk or of the court. In re Wight, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 136, 144; Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co. (1), ante, 384; Galloway v. McKeithen, 5 Iredell (Law), 12; Hyde v. Curling, 10 Missouri, 227. Nor is this a suit-in equity to set aside or vacate the judgment upon any of the grounds on which courts of equity interfere to prevent the enforcement of judgments at law. It is simply an application by petition to a court of law, after its judgment has been reversed, and a different judgment directed to be entered, to so change the record of the original judgment as to make a case materially different from that presented to the court of review. The application derives no strength from the fact that it was by petition, and not by motion supported by affidavits.

We know of no precedent for such a proceeding as this, nor is there any principle of law upon which it could be based. In Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415, the court, after adverting to the general rule that the judgments, decrees or other orders of a court, however conclusive in their character, are -under its control during the term at which they are rendered, and may be set aside, vacated, modified or annulled by it, said: “It is a rule equally well established, that after the term has ended all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, unless steps be taken during that term, by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify or correct them; and if errors exist, they can only be corrected by such proceeding by a writ of error or appeal as may be allowed in a court which, by law, can review the decision.. So strongly has this principle been applied by this court that, while realizing that there is no court which can review its decisions, it has invariably refused all applications for rehearing made after the adjournment of the court for the term at which the judgment was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court.” The same principles had been announced in Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492. The exceptions to the general rule, such as suits in equity, and writs of error coram vobis at law, do not embrace the present application. See also Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 674, 675; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507, 511.

Judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice G-ray did not hear the argument, and took no part in the decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (17 total)

  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
    …tier, 7 Cranch, 1; Cameron v. M'Roberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Pet. 488, 492; Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38; Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410, 415-417; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 673, 674; Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 255; Tubman v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 190 U. S. 38; Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U. S. 141, 149-152; In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312, 320, 321. There are certain exceptions. In the case of courts of common law — an…
  • Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944)
    …38. The facts with respect to the fraud practiced on the Patent Office have been known for some years. Bank of United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38; Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. 149; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 672, 678; Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415; Tubman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 190 U. S. 38; Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U. S. 141, 151-2; In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312, 320; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab, 276 U. S. 1, 5; Realty Acceptance Corp. v. Montgomery, 284 U. S. 547,…
  • Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1893)
    …ail Factory, 15 How. 451; Noonan v. Bradley, 12 Wall. 121, 129 ; Tyler v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 253, 283; Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361; Durant v. Essex Co., 101 U. S. 555; Mackall v. Richards, 112 U. S. 369, and. 116 U. S. 45; Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415. .But we have had this matter before us very recently. In Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554, this court affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which had in general term affirmed a judgment awar…

Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw