Although the Boedker case can be distinguished from the instant case upon the facts presented therein, the first paragraph of the syllabus states in no uncertain terms that the finding of the court without the intervention of a jury is equivalent to a verdict of a jury, and that the provisions of Section 11599, General Code, prevent the running of the limitation of time for proceedings in error. The Boedker case has been uniformly followed and applied by the Courts of Appeals. Columbus Ry., Power Light Co. v. C. C. Furniture, Warehouse Auction Co., 44 Ohio App. 159, 184 N.E. 20; Kizner v. Buckeye Union Casualty Co., 45 Ohio App. 521, 187 N.E. 311; Getzug v. Belvedere Bldg. Co., 45 Ohio App. 326, 187 N.E. 22 (holding pronouncements of court, when trial is had to court, prior to filing a motion for a new trial, are akin to rendering of a verdict by a jury); Midland Acceptance Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 49 Ohio App. 243, 197 N.E. 120; Drucker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 49 Ohio App. 526, 197 N.E. 492; In re Guardianship of Gausepohl, 51 Ohio App. 261, 200 N.E. 520; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dixie Terminal Co., 59 Ohio App. 305, 17 N.E.2d 954; Kuhn v. Industrial Comm., 63 Ohio App. 279, 26 N.E.2d 592 (holding that the judgment entered on the journal had only the legal effect of a finding of facts and the equivalent of the verdict of a jury); Liberal Savings Loan Co. v. Frankel Realty Co., 64 Ohio App. 97, 28 N.E.2d 367; In re Estate of Lowry, 66 Ohio App. 437, 35 N.E.2d 154 (affirmed 140 Ohio St. 223); Bauer v. Heaton, 68 Ohio App. 181, 38 N.E.2d 413; Torto, Admx., v. NewYork Cent. Rd. Co., 68 Ohio App. 415, 41 N.E.2d 742 (applied to direction of a verdict); Bank of Elmore Co. v. Damschroder, 69 Ohio App. 15, 42 N.E.2d 781; Western Reserve Mutual Casualty Co. v. Holstein, 72 Ohio App. 65, 47 N.E.2d 794; Eagle Sav. L. Assn. v. Hucke, 73 Ohio App. 1, 53 N.E.2d 537; Schaffer v. Schneider, 75 Ohio App. 138, 61 N.E.2d 238; Noonan v. Noonan, 35 Ohio Law Abs., 501 (divorce case).