
    John H. Stallcup v. John Baker and others.
    The rendition of judgment by a justice of the peace upon a verdict of a. jury, in an action tried before him, is a judicial and not a ministerial act, and neglect on his part to render judgment on such verdict within the time required by law to make the judgment valid is not a breach of his official bond, conditioned that he “ shall well and truly perform every ministerial act that is enjoined upon him by law and by virtue of said office.”
    Error to the district court of Columbiana county.
    The action in the common pleas was brought by the plaintiff in- • error, on the oficial bond of Baker as a justice of the peace.
    The condition of the bond is that Baker “ shall well and truly pay over according to law all moneys which may come *into his [545 hands by virtue of his said commission, and shall also well and truly perform every ministerial act that is enjoined upon him by law and by virtue of said office.”
    The alleged breach of the bond is that; in an action between the-present plaintiff and one Chamberlain, tried before Baker as justico of the peace, the jury, on November 24, 1862,. returned a ver•dict in favor of the present plaintiff in error, against Chamberlain •for $32.90 and costs of suit, and that Baker neglected and refused to render judgment on the verdict until the 3d of December, 1862, "which judgment, on petition in error filed in the court of common pleas by Chamberlain, was reversed at the costs of the present ■plaintiff in ei’ror, because it had been rendered so long after verdict.
    The damages claimed were these costs-and counsel fees for serviices in the proceeding in error.
    The common pleas gave judgment for the defendants, and the 'district court affirmed it. This proceeding is to obtain a reversal •of this judgment of affirmance.
    
      M. D. and John G. Stallcup, for plaintiff in error, argued :
    That the failure of Baker, as justice of the peace, to render judgment on the verdict within the time required by law, was a failure to perform a ministerial as distinguished from a judicial act, and therefore, a breach of his bond ; that the omission of duty was a nonfeasance or misfeasance, for which he and his sureties were liable on the bond. 2 Ohio St. 147; Sedgw. on Damages, 460; 14 Ohio, 438; 20 Ohio, 273; Civil Code, sec. 566.
    
      J. A. Ambler, for defendants in error, argued.
    That to “ render judgment ” on a verdict is a judicial duty of a justice of the peace; that after the judgment is rendered the mere entry of it — writing it down — requiring no legal discretion, is a ministerial act. The omission of duty complained of, was the omission of a judicial act, and does not come within the condition of the bond. The courts are lenient toward such inferior officers. Phelps v. Sill, 1 Day, 315; Chickering v. Robinson, 3 Cush. 543.
   *By the Court.

The act of rendering judgment on a verdict is not a ministerial but a judicial act, requiring consideration and discretion. The omission of Baker, as justice of the peace, to fender a judgment on the verdict, within the proper time, was a failure on his part to perform a judicial act required by law, but does not constitute a breach of his bond conditioned that he “shall well and truly perform every ministerial act that is enjoined ■•upon him by law, and by virtue of said office.”

Judgment affirmed.  