other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. People v. Betts, 55 N. Y. 600; Sundberg v. District Court, 16 N. W. Rep. 724; Fogg v. Parker, 11 Iowa 18; School District v. District Court, 48 Iowa 182; Duggen v. McGruder, 12 Amer. Dec. 527: Commonwealth v. McAlister, 26 Amer. Dec. 70. The acts complained of in the petition are purely ministerial and could not operate to divest the court of jurisdiction or destroy the verdict which was duly entered, and the docketing of which was equivalent to the entry of judgment. Lynch v. Kelly, 41 Col. 232; Overhall v. Pero, 7 Mich. 316. The return to the original writ discloses a perfect docket record, correctly entered at the proper time and place, and that record must control and cannot be contradicted or impeached by the return of the justice, or his predecessor. Weaver v. Lammon, 28 N. W. Rep. 905; Mudge v. Yaple, 25 N. W. Rep. 298; Galloway v. Corbitt, 52 Mich. 460; Hauser v. Wiscorsin, 33 Wis. 678; Goodnough Horse Shoe Co. v. Rhode Island Co., 95 U.S. 19; Harris v. Barber, 129 U. S. 366; National Tube Works Co. v. City of Chamberlain, 5 Dak. 54.
Benton & Amidon, for respondent:
By failure to render and enter judgment at once upon re- ceiving the verdict of the jury, the justice lost jurisdiction of the action, and the judgment was an absolute nullity. Watson v. Davis, 19 Wend. 371; Sibley v. Howard, 3 Denio 72; Barrian v. Olmstead, 4 E. D. Smith 279; Wiseman v. Railroad Co., 1 Hilt. 300; Gillian v. Spratt, 41 How. 36; Gillingham v. Jenkins, 40 Hun 594; Saunders v. Tioga Manufacturing Co., 27 Mich. 520; Brady v. Tabor, 29 Mich. 199; McNamara v. Spees, 25 Wis. 639; Hull v. Malony, 14 N. W. Rep. 374; Guthrie v. Humphrey, 7 Iowa 33. The failure to enter the judgment at once upon receiving the verdict operated as a discontinuance of the action. Watson v. Davis, 19 Wend. 371; Bloomer v. Merrill, 29 How. 262. The judgment of the justice was an absolute nullity because upon receiving the verdict of the jury he adjourned his court indefinitely, without specifying any time or place at which the court would sit for further proceeding in the case. Roberts v.
