In re Notice of Intention to Appeal

Hamilton Circuit Court

In re Notice of Intention to Appeal

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 810

DecidedJuly 1, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 810 (In re Notice of Intention to Appeal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Notice of Intention to Appeal, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 810 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1900).

Pincite

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, p. 682, sec. 124. The' statute, sec. 5227, Rev. Stat., 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 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 an omission by a nunc pro tunc entry of the notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, p. 682, sec. 124. The' statute, sec. 5227, Rev. Stat., 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 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 an omission by a nunc pro tunc entry of the notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-notice-of-intention-to-appeal-ohcircthamilton-1900.