
    Hammond Bros. & Co. v. Lusk.
    
      Detinue.
    
    (Decided April 17, 1907.
    43 So. Rep. 573.)
    1. Judgment; Amendment Kune Pro Tuno; ITurmlcfts Error. — It was harmless error to decline to amend the. judgment nunc pro time by adding thereto the word “one red ox and one red and white ox.” where the complaint described the property as one yoke of oxen — one red ox and one red and white ox, and tlic judgment was for one yoke of oxen.’
    2. Píame. — The .judgment containing the recital that it was admitted by defendant on the trial that the oxen were dead at that time, it was harmless error to refuse to amend the judgment on motion of the defendant by striking out the recital of the admission.
    Appeal from Etowah Circuit Court.
    Heard before 1-Ion. AY. AY. Haralson.
    Action by John A. Lusk against Hammond Bros. & Co. From a judgment denying a motion to amend a judgment entered nunc pro tunc, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    George D. Motley, for appellant.
    The court should have granted the motion to amend the judgment entry nunc pro time. Tlie evidence in the case is not a part of the record unless embodied in the bill of exceptions and cannot be made such by the unauthorized certificate of the clerk or by reference to it in the judgment entry. — 2 Cyc. 1063. The only recital that a judgment should contain are those that are necessary for the proper entry of the, judgment, and no other recital can he considered as a part of the judgment and should bo stricken on motion nunc pro tunc. — 2 Cyc. 1072, (2) (b).
    Dortch, Martin & Arlen, for appellee.
    This is not a case, where a motion can be made to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc, conceding that the judgment entry contains improper matter. — Robert non r. Kiixj, 120 Ala. 459; 103 Ala. 196.
   DOWDELL, J.

The appeal in this case is taken from a judgment of the circuit court denying a motion made by the defendant in the court, below to amend a judgment entry nunc pro tunc.

The suit was in detinue. The complaint described the property sued for as “one yoke of oxen, one red ox and one red and white ox.” The judgment rendered for the plaintiff was for “one yoke of oxen,” and the value was assessed in the aggregate at $45. By the motion of the. defendant to amend it was sought to introduce into the judgment entry the words contained in the complaint, “one red ox and one, red and white ox.” These words in the complaint immediately follow the words “one yoke of oxen,” and it is evident that, they were merely descriptive of the oxen composing the yoke. The judgment entry, without these dscriptive words, was complete, and we are unable to sec how the defendant can be injured by the omission of them from the judgment, entry, or can he benefited by incorporating them therein;

By the motion to amend, it was also sought to strike from the judgment, entry the recital in the, judgment that “it, was admitted by the defendant on the trial of this cause that the cattle sued for were dead at the time of trial.’’ If it be conceded that this recital was un-necessary to a complete and perfect judgment entry, we are unable, to see how the defendant can be hurt by it. The court overruled the motion to amend, and it is not shown that any error resulting in injury followed from the ruling. The judgment appealed from will'be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, O. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.  