Case Name: HOLBERT, Respondent, v. PARISH, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1916-11-13
Citations: 38 S.D. 13
Docket Number: File No. 4008
Parties: HOLBERT, Respondent, v. PARISH, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
HOLBERT, Respondent, v. PARISH, Appellant.
(159 N. W. 871.)
(File No. 4008.
Opinion filed November 13, 1916.)
1. Appeals — Verdict, Imperfect Entry of — Entry After Appeal— Order Nunc Pro Tunc — Statute.
Where the clerk’s entry of verdict in the minutes failed to set out the verdict at length, as required by Code Civ. Proe., Sec. 274, was insufficient to comply with the statute, it being conceded by appellant that the judgment entry thereon is not void, held, that trial court still has -power, after appeal from its order refusing to vacate the judgment, to direct the proper entry to be made nunc pro tunc.
2. Appeals — Error—Prejudice, Necessity of Showing — Statute.
Under Laws 1913, Chap. 178, -Sec. 1, requiring disregard of an exception unless it clearly appears that the error complained of was prejudicial, appellant is not entitled to a reversal, in absence of a showing creating a presumption of prejudice.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gregory 'County. Hon. William WilliamsoN, Judge.
Action by Fanny Hol'bert, against Hart Parrish. From an order refusing- to vacate a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
M. L. Parrish, and W. J. Hooper, for Appellant.
O. B. Ford, f-or Respondent.
(i) To point one of the opinion, Appellant cited: Thompson on Trials, Vol. 2, Sec. 2635; Locke v. Hubbard, (S. D.) 69 N. W. 588. •
Respondent cited: D-alkbermeyer v. Scholtes, et al, 3 S. D. 183; Book 67, L. R. A. 194; Hall v. State 3 Ga. 18; State v. Valiere, 39 La. Ann. 1060, 3 So-. 186.

Opinion:
WHITING, J-
This is an appeal from air order refusing to vacate a judgment.
Appellant concedes that a verdict was returned in lavor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and that such verdict was handed to the clerk of the trial court, but alleges that the clerk failed to enter the verdict, and that it has never been entered, and contends that, for the above reasons, the judgment entered upon such verdict must be set aside. Appellant concedes that such judgment is not void. It appears that the verdict was not entered at length in the minutes kept by the clerk, but such minutes do contain the following- entry:
"Court convenes at 9 a. m. April nth, and jury returns a verdict for plaintiff in case of Fanny Hol'bert v. Hart Parish and assess her damages at $ioo.oo.''
Section 274, C. C. P. directs • that the verdict he set out at length. Appellant, by conceding that the judgment is not void, concedes that this requirement is not jurisdictional. Appellant concedes that the trial court could even yet require the clerk to make the proper entry, but contends that, until such entry is made, no judgment can rightfully be entered. Even if it should be conceded 'that the entry as made was not sufficient to comply with the statute, yet we are of the opinion- that the trial court had the power, and still has the power, to- direct the proper entry to be made nun-c pro tunc. The appellant has not shown wherein he has been prejudiced under the facts shown. In the absence of such showing as will create a presumption of prejudice, appellant is not entiled to a reversal of the order appealed from. Section 1, c. 178, Laws 1913.
The order appealed from is affirmed.