Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.

Daniel Titus, for complainant.

A. H. Ricketts, for defendant.

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 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.