Federal CourtsamendmentsjudgmentspleadingsprocessJudiciary Act of 1789defect of formrecord
Facts
The writ and declaration stated one plaintiff's Christian name incorrectly. After judgment, the party sought to correct that factual mistake by amendment. The mistake was not apparent on the face of the record and could be shown only by affidavits and evidence outside the record. One defendant had already been committed on execution and discharged from imprisonment under the poor debtors' act.
Issue
May a federal court, after judgment, amend the record to correct a mistaken Christian name of a plaintiff when the error is a factual mistake not apparent on the record and not supported by anything in the existing record to amend by?
Rule
Under the 32d section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts may amend judgments only as to defects or want of form, and may not amend to correct a substantive mistake of fact outside the record when there is nothing in the record or prior proceedings to amend by. At common law, judgments were not amendable after the term, and any such authority exists only as conferred and limited by statute.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In federal court in Denver, Nora Benton obtained a default judgment against three guarantors on a promissory note. Two months later, she moved to amend the judgment to change the first name of one listed plaintiff from "Mara" to "Maria," relying only on affidavits from the plaintiff and her accountant because no filing in the case used "Maria."
Should the federal court grant the motion?
Explanation. The majority treated a mistaken Christian name, in these circumstances, as a factual mistake rather than a defect or want of form. Federal authority to amend judgments is statutory and limited; the court may not alter a judgment based solely on affidavits proving a matter dehors the record when no paper or memorial in the record supplies something to amend by. (Derived from Whitney v. Albers (n.d.).)