Young

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion (1) to expunge the judgment entered on October 1, 1964; (2) to enter judgment nunc pro tunc on the date of September 25, 1964; (3) to correct nunc pro tunc the order granting the motion for a stay of judgment; and (4) to vacate the “void" order granting defendants’ motion for new trial.

We have reviewed the record. That portion of Appellant’s Opening Brief entitled “Facts" appearing at pages 2, 3 and 4 of that brief, and that portion of Bespondents’ Beply Brief entitled “Pacts” appearing at pages 2 and 3 of that brief accurately summarize the factual situation and are adopted as a statement of facts for the purpose of this opinion.

The appellant sets forth the facts as follows:

The respondent adds the following in his statement of facts:

The effect of the entry of judgment nunc pro tunc would be to render void the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 660.)

Plaintiff’s contention, in effect, is that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc in order to correct a clerical error.

The general rule is that “courts have inherent power…