COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59400 S. WAHL PLUMBING & HEATING : : Plaintiff : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION JEFFREY J. PETROSKY, et al : : Defendant-appellees : : vs. : : GUENTHER ENTERPRISES, INC. : : Defendant-appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : OCTOBER 29, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Case No. 132,958 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For defendant-appellee J. NORMAN STARK Jeffrey J. Petrosky: Attorney at Law 960 Leader Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 For defendant-appellant BRADFORD R. CARVER Guenther Enterprises: Attorney at Law The Galleria & Tower at Erieview 1301 E. Ninth Street, #500 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, J.: Defendant-appellant, Guenther Enterprises, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the court of common pleas in favor of defendant-appellee Jeffrey J. Petrosky on defendant-appellant's cross-claim and on defendant-appellee's cross-claim against defendant-appellant. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss this matter for lack of a final appealable order. Plaintiff, S. Wahl Plumbing & Heating Co., brought suit against appellee, his wife Doreen Petrosky, appellant Guenther Enterprises, Inc., National City Bank and Francis Gaul, Treasurer of Cuyahoga County, for "money, foreclosure of mechanic's lien and other equitable relief." Appellant answered and filed a cross-claim against appellee for the balance due on a construc- tion contract. Appellee and wife jointly filed an answer to, and counter-claim against, plaintiff and an answer to, and cross- claim against, appellant. Thereafter, defendant National City Bank answered plaintiff's complaint and filed a cross-claim against appellee on a promissory note. However, plaintiff's claim against appellant was dismissed by stipulation and promptly entered upon the journal. Addition- ally, plaintiff's complaint against appellee and his wife, and - 2 - the counter-claim of appellee and his wife against plaintiff, were dismissed by stipulation and promptly entered upon the journal. Thereafter, appellee filed a third-party complaint against Butler Manufacturing Company and State Automobile Mutual Insur- ance Company. Each third party timely answered, and this cause proceeded to a bench trial. After presentation of evidence concerning appellee's third- party complaint, the trial court granted the third-party defen- dants' motion to dismiss. Finally, after a lengthy trial, the trial court found in favor of appellee on his cross-claim against appellant and in appellee's favor on appellant's cross-claim. Appellant timely appeals. Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) of the Ohio Constitution re- quires a final order to vest this reviewing court with subject- matter jurisdiction over an appeal. A final order is one which "determines the action and prevents a judgment." R.C. 2505.02. A judgment which does not dispose of all claims or parties in a given action and which does not contain the words "no just reason for delay" pursuant to Civ. R. 54(B) is not a final appealable order and must be dismissed by an appellate court for want of jurisdiction. Stewart v. Midwestern Indemn. Co. (1989), 45 Ohio St. 3d 124, citing Noble v. Colwell (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 92. - 3 - Moreover, a court speaks only through its journal and not by oral pronouncement. Schenly v. Kauth (1953), 160 Ohio St. 109, paragraph one of court's syllabus. Accordingly, an order or judgment is not final for the purpose of appellate review unless the trial court journalizes it and files it with the trial court clerk. Brackman Communications, Inc. v. Ritter (1987), 38 Ohio App. 3d 107, 108-109; In re Hopple (1983), 13 Ohio App. 3d 54, 55; cf. Civ. R. 58 (Entry of Judgment); see, also, Allen v. McGrath (1963), 118 Ohio App. 295, 296 (directed verdict is not a final order where there is no entry of judgment). In the present multi-party case, the trial court failed to expressly determine and journalize its ruling on plaintiff's complaint against National City Bank and Francis Gaul, Treasurer of Cuyahoga County. Additionally, National City Bank's cross- claim against appellee has not been expressly determined and journalized by the trial court. Moreover, the trial court has not expressly determined that there is "no just reason for delay." Civ. R. 54(B). Accordingly, since the trial court failed to journalize a disposition to all claims in the present action, and since the final order failed to contain the certification of "no just reason for delay," this court is without jurisdiction to address the issues on appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. - 4 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. KRUPANSKY, C.J. BLACKMON, J. CONCUR JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .