| Volume 194, Page 317 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
8 H. 6, CAP. 12, AMENDMENTS. 317 wrongly entered in matters of form,19 and so in Anders v. Devries, 26 Md. 222, where a judgment by confession having been entered without interest up to the date of the judgment, as required by Art. 29, see. 15 20 of the Code, it seems to have been considered that the Court might have amended it; at all events, as the defendant was not injured the Court of Appeals would not reverse it. But error in law in entering the judgment is not amendable.21 See Cushwa v. Cushwa, 9 Gill, 242, where a judgment in ejectment was entered for the term and damages against the defendant as for want of a plea, but the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff could not have judgment by nil dicit without releasing damages, and then only against the casual ejector, and the judgment could not stand for want of a verdict. In Short v. Coffin, 5 Burr. 2730, a judgment against an exe- cutor de bonis propriis was amended by making it de bonis testatoris si, &c. after argument in error in the Exchequer Chamber, and in Kent v. Lyies, 7 G. & J. 73, the Court of Appeals saying that a judgment rendered against an administrator, instead of being absolute, should have been de bonis testatoris, &c. amended it sua sponte, to save delay. And amend- ments have been permitted where judgment was entered upon a demurrer as upon a nonsuit; where the sum total for damages and costs was mis- cast, see Whetcroft, Admr. v. Dorsey, 1 H. & J. 164; where judgment on verdict was entered different from the postea; where the judgment in ejectment omitted quod' recuperet terminum; where eat sine die was omitted, and where the whole judgment was omitted, Pool v. Longueville, 2 Wms. Saund. 286; Corn. Dig. Amendment, R. So in this State in the case of Duvall v. Wells above cited, which was an action of replevin and referred, the award was filed that the plaintiff should pay the defendant a sum of money, and judgment was entered that the defendant recover against the plaintiff the sum of, &c. Error was brought and the defendant sug- gested diminution because the Clerk had not entered the judgment in proper form for a return of the property, &c. whereupon the amendment was made and the judgment affirmed. In Fisher v. the State, 1 H. & J. 416, a writ of diminution was granted to correct a judgment entered in an action of debt on bond for the sum awarded, instead of being entered for the penalty of the bond to be released on payment of the sum awarded. In Kierstead v. Rogers supra, in an inquisition, about ten dollars costs were found. The Court of Appeals held that the costs were nominal costs, that the error was formal, and it was amended at once, and the judgment affirmed; and see Act 1809, eh. 153;22 Roby v. Turner, 8 G. & J. 132; Char- lotte Hall School v. Greenweil, 4 G. & J. 407. Amendments of writ* of execution.—In the case of Raworth v. Villiers, Comb. 433, Lord Holt doubted whether writs of execution are within the stat- utes of amendment, and in Johnson v. Naylor, 12 Mod. 247, the Court refused to amend a writ of execution, bearing tesye in vacation, the rule appear- ing from S. C. Juxon et ux. v. Naylor, Comyn, 60, (where a ft. fa. bore a 19 See Ecker v. First Bank, 62 Md. 519. Cf. Bond v. Citizens Bank, 65 Md. 498; Waters v. Engle, 53 Md. 179. See also end note to 11 Hen. 4, c. 3. 20 Code 1911, Art. 26, sec. 16. » Cf. Archer v. State, 74 Md. 410. 22 See Code 1911, Art. 75, sec. 35. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 317 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives