Hackfeld v. Ludovico
Hackfeld v. Ludovico
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT BY
The defendant appealed from a judgment against him in the District Court of Honolulu to the Circuit Court, First Circuit, jury waived, where judgment was rendered against him on the 17th August, 1895. Judgment was entered up by the clerk
We find no error here. “The issuing of an alias writ is no doubt always within the province of the court while the judgment continues in force.” Ereeman on Executions, Sec. 52. The case before us is not like that cited by defendant’s counsel, where the execution issued for the proper sum and the plaintiff directed a levy for a smaller sum, and the court refused to issue any further writ. People ex rel. Ransom v. Onandaga C. P., 3 Wend. 331. Whereas in this case the execution was issued for the wrong sum by the mistake of the clerk, the propriety of ordering a second writ is indisputable. See Ereeman, Secs. 53 and 54, even where a satisfaction of judgment has been entered.
The doctrine is, as laid down in Wilson v. Stilwell, 14 Ohio St. 467, that every court has control over its process, and of entries upon its records, and where process is irregularly issued the court has power to inquire into it and correct the error. The practice is quite uniform to do this on motion.
The exceptions are overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. F. HACKFELD, JULIUS HOTING and HERMAN FOCKE, Assignees of W. S. Luce v. F. LUDOVICO
- Status
- Published