Case ID: ohio-law-abs_20/html/0028-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By ROSS, PJ.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEVERS v SCHREIBER
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
    No 4886.
    Decided June 24, 1935
    
      Harry Neal Smith, Cincinnati, for plaintiff in error.
    George H. Kattenhorn, Cincinnati, and A. A. Rendigs, Jr., Cincinnati, for defendant in error.
   OPINION

By ROSS, PJ.

An examination of the reply shows that it definitely puts in issue the allegations of the answer, and that, therefore, the entry granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings was erroneously made.

There is nothing in the record to indicate any justification for the attempt to nunc pro tunc the entry made on April 4th.

A nunc pro tunc entry is only justified where through inadvertence something is done, which is not made a matter óf a journal entry at the time. This form of entry may not be used for the purpose of permitting the court to make an entry which was not actually made at the time stated. In the instant case, no entry was made before the filing of the reply. The attempt to make it appear that such entry was made is without avail.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas must be reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law..

MATTHEWS and HAMILTON, JJ, concur.