
    Murphy & Bros. v. Swadner et al.
    1. By section 12, of chapter 6, of the code (75 Ohio L. 675), power is conferred on this court to vacate or modify its judgments or orders, after the term at which such judgments or orders were made; and, since the-expiration of the Supreme Court Commission, this power extends to-the judgments and orders of the Commission, as fully as to the judgments and orders of the court.
    2. On the hearing of a motion to vacate or modify a judgment or order, on-the ground that it was entered by mistake, parol evidence is admissible.
    3. Where the judgment entered on the journal is different from what was-intended by the court, but is shown to be such as ought to have been rendered, it will not be vacated or modified as entered by mistake.
    Motion to modify a judgment entered by the late Supreme Court Commission.
    The petition in error in this case was filed in this court-on November 17, 1874. The object of the petition was to-obtain the reversal of the finding and order of the Superior-Court of Montgomery county, made in a proceeding to distribute among execution creditors the proceeds of the sale on execution of certain personal property. On the organization of the Commission, the cause was transferred to-that body for decision.
    On June 19, 1878, judgment was entered by the Commission in the follow ing form: “ This cause came on to be heard upon the transcript of the record of the Superior-Court of Montgomery county, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said superior court be, and the same is, hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded to the said superior court for such further proceedings as may be authorized by law.”
    The present motion is made by the plaintiffs in error, and certain of the defendants in error, to so modify the judgment as to show that the cause is remanded to the “ superior court for a distribution of the fund realized from the-sale of both the stock and machinery, according to section. 424 of the code, excluding the executions on the judgments in-favor of Hogle $ Co. and Holmes Co.”
    
    The superior court found that the executions issued oa the judgments in favor of Hogle & Co. 'and Holmes & Co.,, were the first liens on the stationary engine and. certain-other machinery and fixtures in the storeroom of the judgment debtors.
    From the testimony of witnesses contained in the bill-of exceptions, the Commission were of opinion that the-levies under these executions were invalid, for the reasou that there was no sufficient seizure of the property by the-officers holding the executions, and that the superior court, erred in holding the levies valid.
    By consent, on the hearing of this motion, the statement of four members of the Commission has been submitted. This statement is to the effect that it was not intended by the Commission to remand the cause for a rehearing generally, but only so far as was necessary to settle priorities as prescribed by section 424 of the code, excluding Holmes & Co., and Hogle & Co., for the reasons stated in-the opinion delivered in the ease; and that if the attention of the Commission had been specially called to the effect of the entry, they would have directed it to be made in the-form now asked.
    Against the modifications of the entry, the affidavits of the witnesses whose testimony is contained in the bill of ■exceptions, are submitted. The substance of these affidavits is that the testimony of the witnesses as given on the trial in the superior court, is not fully reported in the bill of exceptions, in regard to the seizure and possession of the ¡stationary engine, machinery, and fixtures, by the sheriff under the executions issued on the judgments of Holmes & •Co. and Hogle & Co. That in respect to such property, it •was seized by the sheriff under said executions, and that he continued to hold possession thereof, and that the agreement with the judgment debtor, by reason of which the levies were held to be invalid, did not embrace such property, hut extended only to the stock of merchandise held by the ■debtor for sale.
    - Young Gottschall, for the motion.
    
      Conover $ Craighead, and Thomas 0. Lowe, contra.
   White, J.

The amendment of the constitution by which ■the Commission was created, provides that the decisions of the Commission “ shall be , certified, entered, and enforced .as the judgments of the Supreme Court, and at the expiration of said Commission all business undisposed of shall be certified to the Supreme Court, and disposed of as if said Commission had never existed.” 74 Ohio L. 551.

By section 12, chapter 6 of the revised code (75 Ohio L. •675), power is conferred on this court to vacate or modify its judgments or orders, after the term at which such judgments or orders were made, for the causes specified in ■section 1 of the chapter; and, since the expiration of the Commission, we entertain no doubt that that this power extends to the judgments and orders of the Commission, as fully as to the judgments and orders of this court. If this •court is not invested with the power to vacate or modify the judgments and orders of the Commission, the power •does not exist.

But although the court has the power to make the modification, the case presented by the motion does not, in our •opinion, call for the exercise of the power.

There was no finding of the facts by the court under section .280 of the code. 2 S. & C; 1026. Nor did the case come within section 4 of the act of April 12, 1858. 2 S. & C. 1155.

Independently of that act, judgments and final orders were reviewable on error, under the code, only on questions of law. House v. Elliott, 6 Ohio St. 497; Turner v. Turner, 17 Id. 450; Wilson v. Scott, 29 Id. 636.

Assuming, however, that the Commission, after reversing the judgment of the court below, might, upon the state of the record, have proceeded to render final judgment between the parties, yet they were not bound to do so. And if the showing which is now made to us had been made to them, that the bill of exceptions did not correctly present the facts of the case, and that to conclude the parties by it, might do injustice, it is to be presumed that they would have refused to render such final judgment, and would have remanded the cause, as was done, to the court below for further proceedings. The fact that the judgment as entered on the journal is different from what was intended by the Commission, or rather is different from what they would have entered if their attention had been called to its effect, does not require it to be modified. The judgment is shown to be such as ought, under the circumstances of the case, to have been rendered, and, hence, will not be disturbed.

Motion overruled.  