24 Ga. App. 404 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1919
This case grew out of a distress warrant proceeding instituted by the defendant in error against three named parties for rent due upon certain described premises. On the levy of the distress warrant J. C. Collins filed a claim to the property in dispute. The claimant admitted that the rent was due as alleged in the distress warrant, but contended that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of the crops levied upon before the levy was made, and that he had no notice that the rent was not paid. The trial of the claim case resulted in a verdict finding the property subject. The claimant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted.
The case was tried upon the following agreed statement of facts: “It is admitted as true that A. M. Moses rented the land described in the distress warrant proceeding to W. J., J. W. and E. A. Whitlock, and they executed notes for said rent, and that the notes were transferred by him to M. A. Harrison, and that the sum distrained for is due and unpaid by said Whitlocks for the rent of said land for the year 1916, as in the affidavit alleged. It is further admitted as true that the corn and hay, as shown by the entry of the levying officer, was grown upon the premises described in the distress-warrant proceedings the year 1916, and that at the time of the suing out of the distress warrant there was no crops on he rented premises, the same having been, prior to the levy, disposed of by W. J., J. W., and E. A. Whitlock, and that said Whit-
Judgment reversed.
Note by the Court. After the judgment of this court in this case had been pronounced and entered upon the minutes, and the remittitur issued and transmitted to the trial court and there received, information came to this court that a mistake had been made by the clerk of the court below in transcribing the record, and that in fact the court below in the charge to the jury did not use the word “without,” which appears in the excerpt set out in the second headnote of the foregoing decision, but did use the word “with.” The adjudication was had upon the record as certified by the clerk of that court. No mistake or error, even by inadvertence, was made by this' court in arriving at its judgment, nor by its clerk in transmitting the remittitur. This court lost jurisdiction of the case after its judgment had been rendered and entered on the minutes and the remittitur transmitted to the court below and there received; and consequently this mistake of the clerk of the court below cannot be corrected. But in justice to the trial judge this court takes pleasure in adding this note to the decision. See Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929 (39 S. E. 330); Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Jones, 119 Ga. 907 (47 S. E. 320).