Case Name: RICE et v. DANVILLE (Vil.)
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-10-26
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 701
Docket Number: No. 275
Parties: RICE et v. DANVILLE (Vil.)
Judges: (Shields, J. ,and Lemert, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 701–702

Head Matter:
RICE et v. DANVILLE (Vil.)
Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Knox Co.
No. 275.
Decided Oct. 26, 1928.
F. O. Levering, Mt. Vernon, for Rice.
H. W. Koons, Mt. Vernon, for Danville.

Opinion:
HOUCK, J.
As we view the case, the judgment is void and of no effect, as there is nothing in fact or law upon which said alleged judgment can stand, since the repealing of the ordinance in question. Courts speak through their journals, and when the questioned judgment was jour-nalized it concerned the determination of an issue that at that time did not exist. Hence, the so-called judgment is void and of no binding effect as to the parties thereto.
The following cases, while not directly in point, throw some light upon the question before us:
Coe v. Erb et al, 59 O. S., 259.
Ind. Co. v. Mussolli, 102 O. S. 10.
Cox v. Cox, 108 O. S., 474.
Rubber Co. v. Realty Co., 109 O. S., 294.
In Re Fenwick, 110 O. S., 357.
The finding of this court is that the judgment be and is hereby set aside and held for naught. Costs taxed against the defendants.
(Shields, J. ,and Lemert, J., concur.)