Case Name: Bolles v. Stockman; Bevington v. Meinzer
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 42 Ohio St. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bolles v. Stockman. Bevington v. Meinzer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 42
Pages: 445–449

Head Matter:
Bolles v. Stockman. Bevington v. Meinzer.
1. Where a court acquires jurisdiction of an action, such court (unless the action he ended by the parties), retains jurisdiction until it renders a final judgment in the case.
S. Where a proceeding in error is prosecuted in the district court to reverse the judgment of the court of common pleas, a judgment reversing the judgment of the common pleas with costs, and remanding the cause to the court of common pleas for execution, is not a final judgment, but it leaves the cause pending in the district court.
MotioNS for leave to file a petition in error to the district court of Henry county, and to the district court of Crawford county.
William" Bolles brought suit in the court of common pleas of Henry county, upon the bond of William H. Stockman as administrator of John J. Stockman. He alleged that he had a claim against the estate, which had been duly allowed, but which had not been paid; that there were assets in the administrator’s hands, etc. A demurrer was filed to the petition, and was overruled. Answers and replies, presenting questions of fact, were filed, and on the trial a judgment was rendered for Bolles. The defendants, by petition in error, prosecuted the case in the district court; and on hearing, the district court made the following entry : “ And now come the said parties, by their attorneys, and thereupon this cause came on to be heard, and was heard upon the petition of said plaintiffs in error, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof the court find that the said court of common pleas did not err in overruling the demurrer of said William H. Stockman, Frederick Bostleman, and Dei trick Bremer, to the petition of said William Bolles.
“And the court further finds, error in the proceedings of said court of common pleas, and the evidence, and find that tbe judgment should have been for tbe defendants below instead of for said plaintiff, tbe said William Bolles.
“ It is therefore considered and adjudged by this court, that for the error aforesaid, the said judgment of the said court of common pleas, be and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and the said plaintiffs in error be restored to all things which they have lost by reason thereof; to all of which last finding aforesaid, and the judgment and order therein by this court, the said William Bolles excepts, and prays that his exceptions thereto be made a matter of record in this cause, which is done accordingly. And it is further ordered that this cause be remanded to the said court of common pleas to carry this judgment into effect.”
Also on August 31, 1880, Mary E. Meinzer brought suit against Cassola Y. Harrer, a minor, for partition of certain lands, of which one-half was owned by each. After appraisement and notice, the land was bid off by C. L. Meinzer, the the husband of Mary E. Meinzer, and the sale was confirmed, but he refused to pay for the same. The land was again sold at public auction to another party for a less sum than Meinzer bid for it. The guardian of Cassola sued Meinzer for the loss occasioned by his refusal to complete his purchase. On the trial judgment was obtained against Meinzer, who prosecuted proceedings in error in the district court of Crawford county; and on hearing, the district court made the following entry: “ This day came the parties by their attorneys and thereupon this cause came on to be heard as well upon the transcript of the judgment and other proceedings between the said parties in the court of common pleas of said county of Crawford, and the original files and pleadings brought here upon said petition in error, and also upon the matters by the said plaintiff herein assigned for error, and the same being 'seen and by the court now here fully understood, and was argued by counsel.
“ On consideration whereof the court do find that in the record and proceedings aforesaid, and on giving the judgment aforesaid, there is manifest error; therefore it is considered that the judgment aforesaid for the errors aforesaid be re versed, annulled and altogether held for nothing; and that the said plaintiff in error herein be restored to all things which he has lost by occasion of said judgment, and recover against the said defendant in error, his costs in this behalf expended taxed to $ . ‘ And it is ordered that a special mandate be sent down to the said court of common pleas to carry this judgment into execution.’ ”
Plaintiffs ask leave to file petitions in error on these judgments of the district courts.
John U. Doyle and Tyler dk Donnelly, for Bolles, and James Lawrence, for Bevington.
J. M. Haag, for Stockman, and 8. R. Harris and J. R. Glymer, for Meinzer.

Opinion:
Follett, J.
In both of these cases proceedings in error were prosecuted in the district courts. Each one was fending in the district court, and has not been reserved to this court; and, there being no appeal, has the petition in either ease been dismissed? Or has either case been remanded to the court of common pleas ?
In the first case, the district court found, that the court of common pleas did not err in overruling the demurrers to the petitions, and the court did not dismiss the petition. It adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be reversed with costs, and that the plaintiffs in error be restored to all things which they had lost by reason of the judgment.
The court did not remand the case with special directions, neither did the court remand the case to be tried on its merits. The district court simply remanded the cause to the court of common pleas to have its judgment for costs carried into effect.
In the second case, the district court found error in the court of common pleas in rendering its judgment, and the district court reversed that judgment, and restored the plaintiff in error to all things he had lost by reason thereof; and also rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error for costs in that behalf ex pended. The district court did not reserve the case to this court; it did not remand the case to be tried on its merits, or to be disposed of in any way; but it only ordered that a special mandate be sent down to the court of common pleas to carry its judgment for costs into execution. In neither case is the judgment rendered a final judgment or order. It does not dispose of the whole case, nor of any distinct part of the case, as it must do before this court can take jurisdiction. Bevised Statutes, § 6707, provide, "An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, and an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding, or upon a summary application in an action after judgment, is a ji/nal order which may be vacated, modified, or reversed, as provided in this title."
See also, Kinsley v. State, 3 Ohio St. 508; Holbrook v. Connelly, 6 Ohio St. 199; Hobbs v. Beckwith, 6 Ohio St. 252; Stubenville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Patrick, 7 Ohio St. 170; and Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; also Bevised Stats. § 6710, as to when this court may act.
Our statutes provide for books and officers to keep an exact record of ea'ch step in a cause, and true and full statement of what is done by the parties, by the officers, and by the court. So there should be" no doubt or ambiguity as to just what is done in every stage of the case, at least by the court. The Bevised Statutes provide as follows: section 1240 requires the election, in each county, of a clerk of the court 'of common pleas.
Section 1241 requires him to give bond conditioned, among other things, " that he will enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the courts of which he is by law the clerk," &c.
Section 1242. " The clerk of the court of common pleas shall also be clerk of the district court, and of any superior court held in his county."
Section 4957. " The clerk of the court of common pleas shall keep at least five books, to be called the appearance docket, trial docket, journal, record, and execution docket."
Section 1245. " The cleric shall indorse on every pleading or paper in a canse filed in his office, the time of filing, and enter all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the courts of which he is by law the cleric," &c.
Section 5331. " All judgments and orders must be entered on the journal of the court, and specify clearly the relief granted or order made in the action."
Section 5332. " The clerk shall make a complete record of every cause," &c.
Section 5334. " The records shall be made up from the petition, the process, the return, pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of the court," etc.
Section 5335 provides how a complete record may be secured, and the record is the evidence of what is done., "When such a record is secured — and all records' not impeached are held to be such — it shows all that was done in the case; and there is no room to conjecture that other things, not shown by the record, were intended.
In these cases the records do not show a final judgment, but they do show that the cases are pending in the district courts.
The motion in each case must be refused.
Motions overruled.'