Gorham v. Broad River Tp.
Opinion of the Court
The present is a motion by the plaintiff’s attorney to amend his petition for writ of error granted in this case. The defendant’s attorney was duly notified thereof, and was represented at the hearing. The judgment in the case tried before the court without a jury resulted in a verdict for the defendant, Mr. Burke, who in the cause represented the plaintiff, filed a petition for a writ of error, accompanying the petition with assignment of errors, the bond of plaintiff, and citation in the name of plaintiff. By an error he begins the petition for the writ in these words: “The defendant, by counsel, comes and says that in the record and proceedings in this cause there is manifest error in this, to wit; in the particulars appearing in the assignment of errors hereto annexed as part of this petition.” Then he goes on: “Wherefore, for these and other errors apparent on the record, the defendant, by counsel, prays writ of error,” etc. He signs it counsel for petitioner. The writ of error granted is to the plaintiff by name, the bond is that of plaintiff, the citation is in the name of plaintiff. The assignment of errors charge error in not granting judgment to plaintiff. '
The first question is, can this court entertain this motion, the term having elapsed ? It being a clerical error clearly, the court has-jurisdiction to do this. In re Wight, 134 U. S. 136, 10 Sup. Ct.
Eet the plaintiff have leave to amend his petition nunc pro tunc so as to strike out the word “defendant” wherever it occurs, and insert the word “plaintiff.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.