167 Iowa 362 | Iowa | 1914
It appears from the record in this case that on or about the 24th day of August, 1908, a decree of perpetual injunction was issued by the district court of "Wapello' county perpetually enjoining one of the defendants from the illegal traffic in intoxicating liquors in the city of Ottumwa or elsewhere in that judicial district; that on the 13th day of November, 1913, the complainant herein filed an information under oath, alleging that since the rendition of said decree
To the information so filed defendant answered, denying each and every allegation therein made. Upon the issues so tendered the cause was tried, the defendant C. W. Vermillion presiding judge, and judgment and decree finally rendered and entered in favor of said Larry Glynn, dismissing the complaint, the judgment being in the following words and figures:
Be it remembered that on this 29th day of November, 1913, this cause was dismissed. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that this cause be dismissed and the same is thereby dismissed, .and defendant discharged, and his bond exonerated.
Upon reflection, I am not satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding that the defendant Glynn is guilty of contempt. The fact that intoxicating liquors were sold on the premises where the defendant was employed, or in a room so connected with, and under such circumstances
Thereafter, on the 29th day of November, judgment and decree dismissing the complaint, as hereinbefore set out, were duly rendered and entered of record by the clerk of the district court of the county in which the cause was tried.
The petitioner complains in two respects of the action of the court: (1) That the original pronouncement by the judge that he fined the defendant Larry Glynn $500, and costs, was conclusive — a finality; and that the court or presiding judge thereafter had no right to change his mind and enter another and different judgment than that so pronounced and declared in open court. Upon this point we have to say that the record is rather obscure as to whether this ease was tried in open court, but we assume from the statements made in the abstract that the trial was had in open court, and before the court, for it is said: “The court found the defendant Larry Glynn guilty of contempt,” etc. From the amendment to the abstract we gather that the final judgment dismissing the cause was also entered by the court, and was duly recorded in the same
In Streeter v. Gleason, 120 Iowa, 706, we find the following language used:
It is argued by appellant that, as judgment had been entered against the garnishee and the record had been signed by the judge, the trial court had no power or jurisdiction to set aside the entry and reopen the proceedings upon garnishee’s motion. The position thus taken is untenable. The
Section 243 of the Code reads:
The record aforesaid is under the control of the court, and may be amended, or any entry therein expunged, at any time during the term at which it is made, or before it is signed by the judge. \
In Hull v. Eby, 123 Iowa, 259, we find the following language :
But the record shows that, though the decree had been signed, it had not been entered in the record prior to its correction by the district court, and was not therefore a judgment (citing authorities).
In the same case and on the.same page, after citing the section above referred to, it is said:
If this can be done after the signed form of decree has become a part of the record, there is no reason for denying the authority of the court to modify its decision before being spread upon the record.
We reach the conclusion that there is no merit in plaintiff’s contention on this point.
It is next urged that the evidence submitted did not justify the final entry by the court dismissing the complaint. -
We find no ground for interfering with the action of the court in this case, and it is therefore — Affirmed.