delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal upon the premise that the judgment from which the appeal is taken was annulled by the trial court and a different judgment entered in lieu thereof. On April 17, 1913, a judg*231ment for $5,000 was docketed in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. The Portland Railway, Light & Power Company on July 3, 1913, filed its notice of appeal and subsequently took steps necessary to perfect its record in this court. On August 29, 1913, the Circuit Court, in the presence of the legal representatives of the parties litigant, entered the following judgment: “It appearing to the court that on the 17th day of April, 1913, a verdict was returned by the jury in the sum of $5,000 against the defendant Portland Railway, Light & Power Company in the above-entitled cause, and not against the Portland Water Power & Electric Transmission Company. It appearing to the court that, through inadvertence and mistake, a judgment was rendered and entered against both defendants above named in said cause on said verdict for the sum of $5,000 and $63.60 costs and disbursements, and it further appearing to the court that said judgment so rendered and entered on said verdict against the defendant corporation above named should he vacated and held for naught, and that a judgment should be entered to conform with said verdict, to wit, a judgment in the sum of $5,000 and costs and disbursements taxed at $63.60 against the Portland Railway, Light & Power Company, one of the defendants above named: Now, therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that said judgment rendered and entered on the 17th day of April, 1913, be and the same is hereby annulled and held for naught; and it is further considered, ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff above named do have and recover of and from the defendant Portland Railway, Light & Power Company the sum of $5,000 and his costs and disbursements in *232this action taxed at $63.60, and that execution issue therefor, and that this order he entered nunc pro tunc as and of the 17th day of April, 1913.” From this judgment no notice of appeal was given.
1. The record before us is supported solely by the original judgment under date of April 17, 1913. By the exactment of Section 550, L. O. L., the serving and filing of a notice of appeal is an act prerequisite to this court acquiring jurisdiction. Not only must notice be given as required by the statute, but the contents thereof must describe with reasonable certainty the judgment or decree from which the appeal is taken.
2, 3. In a consideration of this motion it must be borne in mind that the judgment enrolled August 29, 1913, was after the expiration of the term wherein the original judgment was entered, and as a consequence thereof the trial court was without jurisdiction to annul the judgment entered April 17, 1913. While the court used the expression that the original judgment was “annulled and held for naught,” subsequent language shows that the order was only nunc pro tunc in character. All the court professed to do by the last order was to eliminate one of the defendants and .thereby relieve it from the burden of the first judgment. This the court had a right to do by the entry of the judgment of August 29, 1913, as and of April 17, 1913, so that the latter order would reflect the truth of the record which by inadvertence was omitted from the primal judgment: Grover v. Hawthorne, 62 Or. 65 (116 Pac. 100, 121 Pac. 804); Frederick & Nelson v. Bard, 66 Or. 259 (134 Pac. 318). Therefore, on principle, the only judgment which speaks the final determination of the rights of the parties as adjudged *233by the lower court is the one from which this appeal is taken under date of April 17, 1913.
Wherefore the motion to dismiss is overruled.
Motion Overruled.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Eakin concur.