Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42. Page: 82

82 KING v. GOODSON. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
was given, and prays for judgment on the note sued on,
and also for the enforcement of the vendor's lien.
A judgment by default was taken for the amount due on
the note, and at the same term this judgment was set aside
upon motion of plaintiffs below, who are defendants in error
here, without notice to the defendant, King, of said motion.
The plaintiffs below amended their petition by setting
out the metes and bounds of the lot, particularly locating
the lot again east of the lot on which is situated the Baptist
church, as may be seen by tracing the calls in the description,
and averring it to contain the same amount of
land and improvements thereon as stated in the original
petition, and to be the same lot as that described in the
original petition, and also again praying for the enforcement
of the vendor's lien and for judgment as in the original
petition.
Again, and during the same term, without any further
notice to, judgment by default was rendered against him
for the same amount and for the vendor's lien upon the lot,
mill, and other improvements, according to the description
of those given in the amended petition.
Plaintiff in error complains of the action of the court
and contends that notice should have been given to him it
setting aside and reforming the judgment, and also notic
should have been given to hint of the amended petition.
As to the first point, it is sufficient to say, that being A
judgment by default, and the judgment during the term
being within the control of the court, it was clearly within
the power of the court, without further notice, to amend
the judgment, so far as might be necessary to cure any
mistake or omission of the clerk apparent upon the record
itself, as it was in this case. And had the judgment been
amended without amending the petition, so as to give the
plaintiff the benefit of the vendor's lien upon the lot and
improvements thereon, as described in the original petition,
it would have been a good and proper judgment.