Eldridge & Higgins Co. v. Barrere

Citations

• 74 Ohio St. (N.S.) 389

Syllabus

<p>Journal entry confessedly made and entered on certain day— Same entry later fixing time within which ■ decree is to he performed — Latter entry not regarded as nunc pro tunc, when — Question of date of validity of decree — Motion for new trial — Pleadings—Legal procedure.</p> <p>1, Where a journal entry confessedly made and entered on the fourth day of November, 1904, begins with the recital: “This day this cause came on to be heard on the pleadings and the evidence and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof the court does find on the issues joined in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants,” etc., but thereafter the same entry, in fixing the time within which the • decree it records is to be performed, uses the following language: “within thirty days from the rendering of this decree, to wit: the twenty-fourth day of October, 1904,” the latter recital will not be held so far controlling as. to give to such entry the effect of an entry nunc pro tunc, nor does It operate to give said decree force and validity from October 24, 1904. But such decree is valid and operative only from November 4, 1904, the date of its entry, and a motion for new trial filed within three days thereafter is in time.</p> <p>'2. An order of the court dismissing and striking from the files a motion for new trial without considering or determining such, motion on its merits, is a final order reviewable on error. (Young v. Shallenberger, 53 Ohio St., 291, distinguished.)</p>