
    BALLEN v. FARNSWORTH.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 84-85.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1851.
    1. SUPREME COURT PRACTICE. Cause will not be remanded to supply record.
    The supreme court will not remand a cause in order that an entry of record may be supplied from the rough minutes and notes of the presiding- judge — there being no. record to show the fact. [Nor award a certiorari to correct its judgment. at a former term. McNew' v. Rogers, ante, p. 30. May remand for amendment of pleadings and trial de novo. Wilson v. Smith, 5 Yer., 379; Stovall v. Bowers, 10 Hum., 560; McCandless v. Polk, 10 Hum., 617, 620, 621; Evans v. Thompson, 12 Heis., 538; Fogg- v. Bank, 4 Bax., 541; Calhoun v. Rillard, 4 Hay., 56, 59, 60; Henderson v. King-, 4 Hay., 94, 97, 98; Smyth v. Carden, 1 Swan, 28; Huff v. Rake, 9 Hum., 137, 139, 140. Will not remand for amendment where it was not asked for in the court below on demurrer. Cain v. Kersay, 1 Yer., 443; Robertson v. Waters, 1 Yer., 200. Formal amendment allowed in the supreme court where it was asked for in the court -below and was refused, after demurrer. Overton v. Crabb, 4 Hay., 109. Material amendments cannot be made in supreme court. Smyth v. Carden, 1 Swan, 28.]
    2. PRACTICE. Record not amended from judge’s notes
    The rough minutes and notes of the judge are not in .the nature of a record, but are mere parol proof and evidence in pais; and it is error to amend the record in a suit,' by them, after the adjournment of the term. [Williams v. Tenpenny, 11 Hum., 176. Modified by statute. Code, sec. 4597.]
    3. SAME. No amendment after term except by record.
    After the adjournment of the term at which a judgment is rendered, a court has no power to amend its judgment except by matter of record. [Ridgeway v. Ward, 4 Hum., 430; Blake v. Dunn, 5 Hum., 578. Changed by statute to a certain extent. Code, secs. 4597-4600, and notes.]
    4. SAME. Written opinion of supreme court, matter of record.
    The written opinion of the supreme court filed in the cause in which it was rendered is in the nature of a record, and an entry made by mistake may be amended by such opinion. [Crutchfield v. Stewart, 1 Hum., 380; McGavock v. Puryear, 6 Cold., 38.]
    Sneed moved to remand this cause to the circuit court, to the end that an entry of record disposing of a motion to dismiss for champerty might be supplied. He stated that the record below did not show the fact, but that the rough minutes of the court did.
   Totten, J.:

The motion here is to remand the cause to have the record amended.

This cannot be done. The question is similar to that in a case recently decided by us at Nashville. [Williams v. Tenpenny, 11 Hum., 176.]

There a judgment was entered by mistake for an amount different from that found by the jury. At the next term it was amended by the rough minutes and the judge’s notes. This we held to be error, and the judgment was reversed.

After the term, the court has no power over the record, except to amend by matter of record. The farthest this court has ever gone was to amend an entry made by mistake, by a written opinion of this court filed in the cause [Crutchfield v. Stewart, 1 Hum., 380]; we held that the opinion being filed by the requirement of the statute, was in the nature of a record. But the notes of a circuit judge are not in the nature of a record, being mere parol proof and evidence in pais.  