Harvey v. Brown
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause came before Judges Sherman and Burnet at the July term, 1824, in Butler county, on a writ of error. The error relied on was that no regular judgment had been entered in the court of common pleas. The facts of the case were these: The cause having been called in its order, in the common pleas, the defendants were defaulted, and judgment ordered to be entered against them.
Read the full summary
This cause came before Judges Sherman and Burnet at the July term, 1824, in Butler county, on a writ of error. The error relied on was that no regular judgment had been entered in the court of common pleas. The facts of the case were these: The cause having been called in its order, in the common pleas, the defendants were defaulted, and judgment ordered to be entered against them. The clerk, in making up the minutes of the day, stated the cause, and entered the order in these words: “Judgment,” etc., in which form the entry stood when the minutes were read and signed by the presiding judge.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The copy of the minutes forms no part of the record, and can not be considered as the foundation of an assignment of errors. *269The statute makes a clear distinction between the daily entries on the minute book, and the complete record which is to be made up in the vacation and entered in the book of records. The former is intended to prevent mistakes in entering the orders of the day, and to detect them where they are made. The latter is considered *the record of the cause, and supersedes the necessity of any further recurrence to the minute book. The writ of error must be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brumagim v. TillinghastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Lessee of Morgan v. BurnetOhio Supreme Court · 1849
- In Re Inter-County BridgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923