Opinion, per JOHNSON, J.

cumstances and conditions necessarily a part of the factory life. One of the conditions is the presence of machinery, in repair or out of repair; the condition of the factory itself, in repair or out of repair; and another circumstance is the presence of other employes engaged in and about the plant. Every one realizes the ordinary risks that flow from the presence of fellow-servants. All parties must be held to have contemplated the possibility of injury connected with that situation. The legislature contemplated it. The factory and machinery and employes constitute one entire situation. The presence of the employe in a factory with other employes involves the hazard of injury from the machinery, the work itself, or the acts, negligent or not negligent, of other employes. If an employe, while a part of that situation, receives an injury as the result of an occurrence incidental to the conduct of the business, that injury was received in the course of his employment.

In the recent case of Leonbruno v. Champlain Silk Mills et al., 128 N. E. Rep., 711 (December 21, 1920), the court of appeals of New York says: "The risks of such associations and conditions were risks of the employment."

In this case the scuffle for the file between the other employes was a thing not at all unlikely to occur. It was an event of the sort that is of frequent occurrence between workmen. It must be remembered that the claim or award is not based on any neglect or fault of the employer or of any of his employes. The injury in this case was caused by an occurrence occasioned in the environment, and

Opinion, per JOHNSON, J.

it was an injury "occasioned in the course of the employment" and because of the employment. See

also Industrial Commission of Ohio v. Pora, 100 Ohio St., 218. An entirely different situation would exist if some outsider, a third person, not connected with the plant of the employer, or the business, were to step into the plant and shoot the employe because of a grievance wholly disconnected with the enterprise, and the same observation might be made if the employe himself should engage in something outside of and foreign to his employment. None of the grounds upon which injuries of employes are regarded as a charge upon the business would be present. It would not be an injury occasioned in the course of employment within the meaning of our

statute.

For the reasons given the judgment in this case will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

WANAMAKER, ROBINSON, JONES and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur.

MARSHALL, C. J., and HOUGH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Statement of the Case.

THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO V.

MUSSELLI.

New trial-Time for filing motion -Section 11578, General Code -"Decision" construed-Date of judgment entry governs Oral announcement date not controlling.

1. The term "decision," found in Section 11578, General Code, is used in that section in the sense of judgment. The court speaks through its journals and a judgment is not rendered until it is reduced to a journal entry.

2. Said section is a remedial statute and by Section 10214, General Code, it is made the duty of the court to give it a liberal construction, "in order to promote its object, and assist the parties in obtaining justice."

3. Where an oral announcement of a decision upon the issues involved has been made by a trial judge and thereafter a judgment entry has been signed by him and the entry received and filed on the same day by the clerk, a motion for a new trial, filed within three days after such receipt and filing, was a compliance with Section 11578, General Code; it was filed within three days after the decision or judgment was rendered.

(No. 16521-Decided February 1, 1921.)

ERROR to the Court of Appeals of Delaware county.

The Industrial Commission having denied defendant in error's right to participate in the insurance fund, upon the ground that she was not a dependent, the latter filed her petition in the common pleas court by way of statutory appeal, asking for judgment and award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law. Issue was joined and the cause submitted to the court, which found in favor of the defendant in error.

At this stage arose the controversial points which led to the prosecution of error to the court of ap

Statement of the Case.

peals and finally to this court. The judgment entry awarding compensation and fixing attorney fees bears date April 21, 1919. The commission's motion for a new trial bears date April 29, 1919. Afterwards, the defendant commission asked to correct the record to show that the judgment entry though marked filed as of April 21, 1919, was in fact received and filed by the clerk on April 29, 1919. The record shows the following undisputed facts: The cause was submitted to and heard by the court; on April 21, 1919, the court announced orally his findings and conclusion, finding the exact amount of the award; the amount of counsel fees was not then fixed by the court; the court at the time of his oral announcement directed counsel to prepare the journal entry; the record does not disclose when or by whom the journal entry was drawn, but it was not furnished by counsel until April 29, 1919, when it was signed by the judge, and, on the same day, received and filed by the clerk,

On the motion of defendant to correct the record the trial court made the following entry:

"This cause being heard on the motion of the defendant requesting the court to correct its record in this case, so as to show the exact date of filing and entering the judgment entry, and the court being fully advised by evidence offered on this date finds that this cause was heard on its merits on the twenty-first day of April, 1919, and that the court on said day rendered judgment orally in favor of the plaintiff and instructed counsel for both parties to prepare the journal entry; that said journal entry was prepared and submitted to the court on the

Counsel for Parties.

twenty-ninth day of April, 1919, and ordered by him to be entered on the journal of said court as of the twenty-first day of April, 1919, the date on which said judgment was so rendered by the court, and said entry was not entered on said journal until after the twenty-ninth day of April, 1919. To which finding of the court the defendant, by its attorney, excepts.'

Because of the foregoing, the trial court overruled a motion for a new trial. Upon the prosecution of error to the court of appeals, that court made the following entry:

"The court being fully advised in the premises and upon an examination of the record the court finds that the final judgment of the Court of Common Pleas was made and entered upon the journal of said court in this case on the twenty-first day of April, 1919, and that a motion for a new trial was not made and filed until April 29, 1919. By reason thereof this court is without jurisdiction in the premises. And it is hereby ordered and adjudged by the court that the bill of exceptions filed in this case be, and the same is hereby stricken from the files and the petition in error is hereby dismissed. To all of which plaintiff in error excepts."

Error is now prosecuted to this court, seeking a reversal of the lower courts.

Mr. John G. Price, attorney general; Mr. R. R. Zurmehly and Mr. George C. Snyder, prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Paxton, Warrington & Seasongood, for defendant in error.