Scanlon

This action was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due upon the purchase price of a number of hogs. The plaintiff recovered judgment on December 14, 1912, for the sum of $363.43 and costs. On January 31, 1913, the court, “upon ex parte motion of counsel for plaintiff, but .with the consent of the defendant” (so reads the statement in the case), filed amended findings, and caused an amended judgment to be entered, reducing the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery twenty dollars. This reduction in the amount of the judgment seems to have been caused by the discovery that a miscalculation had been made in the amount of interest due, to that extent. Later the defendant moved for a new trial, which being denied, he appealed from the judgment of December 14, 1912; and also from the amended judgment of January 31, 1913, and from the order denying the motion for a new trial.

The appellant’s first contention is that the 'Court had no power to amend its judgment of December 14, 1912, or to make the amended findings and enter the amended judgment of January 31, 1913. It is a complete answer to this contention that the record shows, and the defendant admits, that he consented to the…