Case Name: TURNIPSEED et v. BOWNESS
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1929-12-12
Citations: 8 Ohio Law Abs. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: TURNIPSEED et v BOWNESS
Judges: Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 8
Pages: 57–57

Head Matter:
TURNIPSEED et v BOWNESS
Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Ross Co
Decided December 12, 1929
Messrs. Luthei; L. Boger and Garrett S. Claypool, Chillieothe, for Turnipseed et.
Messrs. W. W. Boulger and Willard C. Walters, Chillieothe, for Bowness.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT
We see nothing in the motion. The journal is the work of the clerk. There is no requirement that the trial judge sign an entry. An entry prepared by counsel and approved by the court is merely a convenient method of assisting the clerk in putting on the journal the judgment or order made by the 'udge. It may be signed anywhere and need not be signed at all. The only question that may be raised in connection therewith is whether the entry on the journal expresses the judgment of the judge. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to overthrow the presumption that the entry is in that respect correct. There is no rule of law or court requiring a judge to grant a formal hearing on such motion.
Neither bill of. exceptions herein discloses anything warranting a reversal.
Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.