dissenting:
Although I am in full accord with the views expressed by the court on reaching the merits of this ease, I must recede from its pronouncement because this appeal is dismissible. It is sought to be prosecuted from trial court’s October 22, 1982 order that sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs’ [appellants’] petition and gave them 10 days to amend.
After this court has ordered them to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed because it is brought from a non-appealable disposition1, appellants supplied for the record two memorials procured by them after commencement of the appeal: (1) a journal entry of May 26, 1983 reciting that judgment in this case was rendered on that day and (2) another journal entry of later date, filed here June 16, 1983, which attempts to correct the first memorial by making the judgment “retroactive to October 22, 1982”.
While flaws in court records may be cured, any changed memorial must show that it supplies a correction of some past *1175action found to have been inaccurately or wrongly recorded. Judgments may not be rendered retroactively and nunc pro tunc corrections may not operate to alter or modify a past decision that is correctly memorialized.2
There is hence no record here of any October 22,1982 disposition that terminates the action in the trial court.
I would dismiss the appeal for want of an appealable order.
. Merchants Delivery Service v. Joe Esco Tire Co., Okl., 497 P.2d 766 [1972],
. Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc., Okl., 623 P.2d 606, 610 [1981]; Stevens Expert Cleaners & Dyers v. Stevens, Okl., 267 P.2d 998, 1001 [1954].