
    Wortham v. Harrison.
    Notwithstanding that the statute (Hart. Dig., art. 78G) provides a mode for the correction of mistakes in the entry of judgments by a proceeding for that purpose in the District Court, yet the Supreme Court is not precluded thereby from the exercise of its power to make such correction upon suggestion of the appellee or defendant in error. (Note 32.)
    Where the defendant appeals’and it is apparent from the record that the judgment is for a less amount in favor of the plaintiff than it should have been, although the plaintiff may not have prosecuted a separate appeal, the court will reform the judgment and enter it for the proper amount.
    The power of the Supreme Court to award damages for delay is not restricted to cases of affirmance, but extends to cases in which the judgment is for the same or a greater amount than that of the court below.
    Error from Red River. Tlie action in this ease was brought on a note which became due on the first January, 1849, but which bore interest from the first day of January, 184S. Tlie defendant was duly served with process, but failing to appear and make defense, judgment final by default was, on the 2d November, entered «against him for tlie debt in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and for interest amounting to tlie sum of one hundred dollars. From this judgment a writ of error was sued out by the defendant. The defendant in error suggested that not only was this appellate process taken for delay, but that there was error against him by miscalculation in tlie amount of interest for which judgment was rendered, and lie prayed not only for damages hut for a correction of tlie mistake in the judgment.
    
      W. Trimble, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. Morrill, for defendant in error.
   Hemphill, Ch. J.

That there is a mlsailcnlation of the amount of interest is obvious. The interest for the. year 1848, or for one entire year, is entirely omitted. It is true that this is an error which could have been corrected below, (art. 786, Dig.,) and as tlie statute has pointed out a specific mode for that purpose1, this should generally he pursued; but although tlie District Court lias authority to malee such corrections, yet this does not preclude tlie Supreme Court from the exercise of its established power to reform judgments so as to accord with tin* rights of tlie parties, and to pronounce such as should have been rendered in tlie court below. The error suggested is apparent on the ■record, and in the ease of McNairy v. Castleberry, decided at tlie last term, (6 Tex. R.,) it was held that such error, although the defendant in error had not prosecuted a separate appeal, was a proper subject for revision and correction by the Supreme Court. (Arts. 2930 and 2913.)

Note 32. — Pridgen v. Bonner, 28 T., 799.

As to the question of the rendition of damages in addition to the correction of the mistake, it will he sufficient to observe that the court in the awarding of damages is not restricted to cases in which the judgment rendered above shall he precisely the same in amount with that entered below. (Art. 2933, Dig.) The, court is authorized to include damages as well when the judgment shall be of greater as of the same amount.

It is ordered, adjudged, aud decreed that the judgment of the District Court shall be and the same is hereby reversed. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the plaintiff, William M. Harrison, do have and recover of the defendant, Timothy Wortham, the sum of fifteen hundred dollars for his debt and two hundred aud twenty dollars for interest. And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said plaintiff, William M. Harrison, do have and recover of the said defendant, Timothy Wortham, ten per cent, on the amount of the said judgment as damages for the delay, together with, all costs on this behalf expended, and that execution issue for said judgment.

Ordered accordingly.  