In Nathanson v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 462, the court originally indicated that 7 percent interest would run from the date the plaintiff parted with money as a result of an alleged fraud. (Id. at pp. 463-464.) At a hearing on a new trial motion, the trial court expressed its intent to change the allowance of interest, such that interest would run only from the date of judgment. (Id. at p. 468.) However, this intent was not reflected in the judgment. Over two years later, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order declaring that interest should run only from the date of the judgment. (Id. at p. 464.) On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the trial court's authority to enter the modification order. The appellate court rejected the contention and affirmed, stating: "The order did not correctly state what the judge had expressed as his intent. This was a clerical and not a judicial error. Therefore, the court had the power, at any time, to correct it, nunc pro tunc." (Id. at p. 470.)