Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanttrialmotion

plaintiffdefendantjurisdictiontrialtestimonymotionwill

Related Cases

Lynah v. U.S., 106 F. 121

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed compensation for approximately 420 acres of land taken by the government for river navigation improvements. They had been in actual, exclusive possession of the land for over seventy years, using it as a rice plantation dependent on the Savannah River for irrigation. The defendant argued that the court had not made a specific finding regarding the land's location between high and low water marks, prompting a motion for a new trial or amendment of the findings.

The finding of facts shows that plaintiffs and their ancestors had been in the actual, exclusive, pedis possessio of all this land— high land and rice land—down to the embankment of the river at low-water mark, holding under a grant from the English crown.

Issue

Did the court err in not making a specific finding regarding the land's location between high and low water marks, and should a new trial or amendment of the findings be granted?

The defendant, being satisfied that such finding has not been distinctly made, has submitted a motion for a new trial, for the purpose of getting such a finding of fact, or, in the alternative, that the court will amend the findings of facts on this point.

Rule

A court has the authority to amend its records to reflect the truth of what occurred during the term, even after the term has ended, provided that the amendment does not contradict the existing record.

It is familiar doctrine that courts always have jurisdiction over their records to make them conform to what was actually done at the term, and, whatever may have been the rule announced in some old cases, the modern doctrine is that some orders and amendments may be made at a subsequent term, and directed to be entered and become of record as of a former term.

Analysis

The court considered the defendant's motion for a new trial and the request for an amendment to the findings. It noted that the absence of a specific finding on the land's location did not affect the legal conclusions reached. The court referenced previous cases that allowed for amendments to records to ensure they accurately reflected the proceedings, concluding that the proposed amendment was justified and did not contradict the record.

In the case at bar we have the notes of testimony showing that the question was made, the requests of defendant to find, and the recollection of the judge, and the proposed amendment contradicts nothing in the record.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for a new trial but granted the amendment to the findings of fact, clarifying the land's location in relation to the water marks.

It is ordered that the fifth finding of fact be amended nunc pro tunc as follows: Strike out the first sentence and insert: ‘That portion of the plantation fronting on the river and dedicated to the culture of rice extended almost up to, if not quite to, low-water mark; and a large part of it was between mean high-water mark and low-water mark, protected from the river by an embankment.’

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court upheld their long-term possession and allowed the amendment to the findings, which supported their claim.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Melms v. Pabst Brewing Co., 104 Wis. 7, 79 N.W. 738, 46 L.R.A. 478

Da Silva v. Musso, 76 N.Y.2d 436, 559 N.E.2d 1268, 560 N.Y.S.2d 109

People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 299 P.2d 243

Betchard v. Iverson, 35 Wash.2d 344, 212 P.2d 783

Barret v. Ivison, 248 Ky. 243, 57 S.W.2d 1005