Opinion
June Term, 1820.
After the term at which a cause was decided, the Supreme Court will not amend the judgment nunc pro tunc on the motion of one party without notice to the adverse party; but upon such notice, the amendment will be allowed.
IN this case a judgment had been rendered against Wood, the defendant, in the court below, which, upon appeal by him, was affirmed in this Court, at May Term, 1819. The record, by some omission of the clerk below, did not state the precise sum of the recovery and costs, so that execution could not be issued from this Court.
Gaston, for the appellee, moved now to enter it nunc pro tunc, and he had brought up the whole record.
But the Court said that the parties were now out of court, and it would be a dangerous practice to allow it, as a spurious record might be brought up, or the judgment (96) may have been satisfied; and the motion was refused.
At a subsequent day, Gaston renewed his motion, having in the meantime served the appellant with notice of it, and he not appearing to oppose it, it was allowed, and the judgment for the specific sum entered nunc pro tunc.