History
  • No items yet
midpage
Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.
60 F. 643
U.S. Circuit Court for the Dis...
1894
Check Treatment
ROSS, District Judge.

By mistake of counsel, the decree entered in this case did not, in some important respects, conform to the opinion and decision of the court theretofore rendered and entered of record; but the fact was not brought to the attention of the court until long after the lapse of the term at which the decree was entered, when a motion was made on behalf of the defendant in the suit to so amend the decree as to make it conform to the decision of the court. The moving party, I think, will have to look for the correction sought to the appellate court, where the case is now pending; for it is the established law that in the federal courts the power does not exist, after the lapse of the term at which a judgment or decree is entered, to so change or modify it as to substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Pet. 491. Motion denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.
Court Name: U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California
Date Published: Mar 22, 1894
Citation: 60 F. 643
Docket Number: No. 183
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.