delivered the opinion of the Court
The statutes of amendments and of Jeofails, do not af-*82feet this question; it depends on the principles of common Jaw alone. As a general, rule, it is unquestionably true, ^ that no act of the Court, as contra distinguished from the ac{- 0f officers, or the parties, can be allowed or amended, but during the term at which it was done. During the term the record is said to be in the breast of the Judge; after it is over, it is upon the roll. But this rule applies to such amendments as call into action the judgment or discretion of the Court, and not to such as are a matter of course, in such oases the reasons of the rule no longer operate; for as much as the law confides in the integrity of the Court, it admits a possibility of its being corrupt, and therefore guards it from temptation.
The case in 5 Term is an authority for this amendment,, and there could not be one more in point; and Lord Kenyon, in a few words, gives the reason. It is a matter of course; the motion, if made at the proper time, could not be refused by the Court. There, can be no reason for not permitting it to be entered now for then, for it produces the same, and no other effect, than if it bad been then entered. Upon its being entered, the error in fact assigned in this writ of error no longer exists. The judgment cannot, therefore, be reversed for error in fact. Whether there be error in law7, cannot be inquired into by virtue of the present writ of error; but if it could, I think that there are none; for although the statute has given a new remedy for injuries arising from mill ponds, the injury is still the same in its nature; it is a tort, in which all or any one or more are liable for the whole injury. It therefore survives against the survivors. JN or is it any objection that some of those who did the injury were mere temporary owners, and that their interest may have since ceased. If their interest was limited, it. should have been offered (if indeed it could have affored any objection) when the five years’ judgment wras about to be entered up. If their interest were then uncertain, and have since determined by casualty, their remedy is by audita querela, or *83some remedy in the nature thereof. If they are entitled to any relief, at.any rate it will not justify the Court, upon a bear suggestion that such may be the case, to reverse the original judgment. The writ of error must be dismissed, and
.'Judgment affirmed-.