
    Ex Parte MORRIS & BLAIR.
    [APPLICATION POE MANDAMUS.]
    Í. Record; what power courts have over, after final adjournment. — After the final adjournment of a court it ceases to have any power over its records, other than that incident to all courts of general jurisdiction, of correcting clerical errors, where the record affords matter upon ' which to base such correction.
    2. Judgment; when error to vaeate, at a subsequent term. — It is error for a circuit court, at a subsequent term, on motion of defendant, to vacate a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and to declare the same null and void, upon the alleged ground that the court had no jurisdiction to render such judgment.
    3. Mamdanms; when will not be issued.*-Such judgment is a final judgment, upon which an appeal will lie to this court, and a mandamus, ox rule msi will not be issued requiring the circuit court to set aside and vacate the order and judgment declaring said judgment null and void.
    This is an application by Morris & Blair for a rule nisi, or an alternative mandamus, to the circuit court of Bullock county, to require said court to set aside and vacate an order and judgment of said court, made at the fall term of said court, to-wit, on the 4th day of December, 1869, setting aside and declaring null and void a certain judgment, recovered by said applicants at the spring term of said court, in the year 1868, for the sum of three hundred and sixty-one 92-100 dollars, against one Lewis Christian.
    The order and judgment sought to be avoided by thin application, is set out in the bill of exceptions as follows: “Morris <fc Blair 1 ring been made by the Lewis Christian. le the judgment rendered in this case, at the spring term, 1868, for three hundred and sixty-one 92-100 dollars, on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction, and that the venue of said cause was never legally changed from Barbour to Bullock county, and the parties being represented by their counsel, and the defendant submitting to the court the allegations of his motion; it is considered by the court that said motion be granted, and said judgment be set aside and declared null and void, and that the defendant recover of the plaintiffs the costs of this proceeding, for which let execution issue.” vs. declare null and void.
    The plaintiffs in that judgment, the applicants in this behalf, excepted to the ruling of said court, setting aside their said judgment, and in declaring the same null and void, and taxing them with the costs.
    Seals, Wood & Roquemore, fro motion.
    J. N. Arrington, contra.
    
   PECK, C. J.

The order and judgment of said court, setting aside, &c., the applicants’ judgment, rendered at the spring term of said court, 1868, for the reasons stated in the said order and judgment, is undoubtedly erroneous. After the rendition of said judgment and the final adjournment of the court, the power of said court over said judgment, except to correct clerical errors, &o., ceased to exist.— Van Dyke v. The State, 22 Ala. 57. But all this being admitted, can the error of the said court be corrected on such an application as this ? We think not. The order and judgment of the court setting aside the applicant’s judgment, and declaring it null and void, and taxing them with the costs, is a final judgment, and an appeal, and not a mandamus, is the proper remedy to correct the error or errors in said order and judgment.

At the last term, in the case of Broyles v. Maddox, we indicated the proper practice in such cases. In this case, if the circuit court had set aside the applicant’s judgment^ and in the same order had granted a new trial, then, the remedy before final judgment, would have been by a mandamus ; in such ease, there would have been no final judgment ; the new trial would have left the original cause still pending and undetermined in that court.

We presume, on a new application to the circuit court, what is here indicated will induce the said circuit court to set aside and vacate the said order, declaring the said judgment null and void, and order an execution to be issued on the applicants’ said judgment against the said Lewis Christian.

The application for a mandamus is denied, at the applicants’ costs.  