Opinion

Anonymous—In re Notice of Intention to Appeal

  • 20 Ohio C.C. 702
Court
Ohio Circuit Courts
Filed
Nov 15, 1897
Status
Published
On the bench
Fox, Smith, Swing
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

PER CURIAM.

In Moore v. Brown, 10 Ohio, 197, it was held that the omission to enter notice at the term at which the judgment was entered could not be cured by a nunc pro tunc order of a subsequent term. This case has not been overruled, and is decisive of the question here presented. The statute then required the notice to be entered at the term, Swan, 1841, page 682, section 124. The statute, section 5227, Revised Statutes, now requires the notice to be entered within three days,and so far as this question is concerned, that is the only difference, so that Moore v. Brown, supra, controls. The judge’s docket is not a record. A verbal notice is not sufficient, nor is the matter *703 within the control of the court. The party'must enter notice on the record. Notice to the judge or court is not a compliance •with the statute, and the court cannot cure the omission *by a nunc pro tunc entry of the notice.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.