38 Tex. 500 | Tex. | 1873
The material question presented for decision in this record is, has the District Court authority to enter nunc pro tunc, at a subsequent term, any order or judgment of that court made at a former term, but which, through the mistake of the clerk, or other person, was not spread upon the minutes of the court, and made a part of the record % Articles 49, 51 and 1245, Paschal’s Digest, appear to have been passed expressly to confer such authority upon the district courts, and this court in McKay v. Speak, 8 Texas, 376, and in Swift v. Faris, 11 Texas, 18, clearly recognizes the authority conferred by statute. In Hagler v. Mercer, 6 Florida, 721, it is said, “The entry of the judgment nunc pro tunc is always proper when a judgment has been ordered by the court, but the clerk has failed or neglected to copy it into the record.”
Under the statute and decisions there must be some memorandum in writing among the papers of the cause to
There are no bills of exceptions, and no statement of facts. The record before us is quite imperfect, and we are warranted in presuming in favor of the legality of the action of the court until the contrary appears.
And being unable to discover any such error in the action of the lower court, as would require a reversal of the judgment, it is affirmed.
Affirmed.