Chissom v. Barbour

It is recited in the record before us that on the 9th day of March, 1883, appellees filed a motion in the above entitled cause to have a judgment in their favor entered nunc pro tunc.

It is contended by appellees that the motion is not in the record, because not brought into it by a bill of exceptions, and in support of that contention they cite us to the case of Ellis v. Keller, 82 Ind. 524. The case before us seems to fall within the ruling in that case, but we have concluded to examine it upon its merits. It is stated in appellees’ motion for a nunc pro tunc entry, that on the 1st day of…