
    Heman Lowry vs. Guy Catlin.
    Chittenden,
    
      January, 1829.
    If the Court on a writ of error affirm the judgment of the court below, and judgmentbe entered up for merely the damages sustained by the delay occasioned by the writ of error, instead of the whole amount of the judgment below, together with such damages, the judgment will be deemed incorrect, and the Court will, on motion by the plaintiff, permit the records of such incorrect judgment to be amended, on sufficient cause being shown by the plaintiff, provided the legal rights of the adverse party are not thereby impaired.
    This was a motion to amend the record of a judgment rendered by this Court at a former term. The petition stated, That the said Lowry, by the consideration of the county court, at the February term in 1822, recovered a judgment against Catlin for $181,02 damages, and $32 81 cost — that the defendant filed his bill of exceptions, and afterwards ,at the Supreme Court, January term, 1823, entered his writ of error to reverse the said judgment, which was continued to the January term of said Court, 1824, when the judgmentof the county court was affirmed, and judgment rendered bysaid Supreme Court; and the entry on the docket was,
    Dam. $23 80
    Cost 7 40
    At the March term of the county court in 1824, Catlin entered his petition for a new trial in said cause, which was granted. At the September term in 1824, a silent judgment was rendered for Catlin, and Lowry appealed to the Supreme Court, January, 1825, and the cause was continued to December term, 1825, at which term it was orderecKo the county court for trial, and was entered there March term, 1826, at which term the plaintiff made his motion to dismiss all the proceedings in the suit subsequent to the January term of the Supreme Court in 1824, which motion was granted. At the term of this court in December, 1826, the plaintiff filed his motion to have the records and docket minutes in the suit, made in the Supreme Court, January term, 1824, corrected, and judgment entered up as of that term, for the sum recovered, as aforesaid, in the county court, February, 1822, together with the damages sustained by the delay occasioned by said writ of error, amounting in the whole to $204 82; And also for the cost taxed at said February term,
    1822, and the cost taxed in the Supreme Court,
    January term, 1824, amounting to $40 21 % which motion was lost, and is hereby renewed.
   Paddock, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. — The Court are satisfied that the judgment of the Supreme Court, January term, 1824, affirming the judgment of the county court, and entering the sum of $23,80 as damages, instead of the judgment recovered in the county court, was incorrect.

Thompson, for plaintiff,

Jidams, for defendant.

The Court have no hesitation in saying that the record ought to be amended, if proper means can be provided, whereby the latent rights of Catlin can be saved ; and perhaps they cannot in any better way, than to permit the amendment under a rule, that the said Heman Lowry consent that the judgment of court, thus made to appear by the amended record, be vacated upon sufficient showing of the said Guy Catlin, on a rule which hereafter may be granted for that purpose.  