Case ID: ohio-np-ns_24/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Snediker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JURISDICTION OF THE DAYTON MUNICIPAL COURT.
    Charles H. Berner v. Rolla H. Wellbaum, Roam Wellbaum and Oakland Wellbaum, Doing Business as R. H. Wellbaum & Sons.
    Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County.
    Decided, April 22, 1922.
    
      Automobile Accident 'Within Municipal Limits — Defendants Residenof an Outside Township — Municipal Court of Dayton Without Jurisdiction.
    
    The jurisdiction of the civil branch of a municipal court does not extend to territory in the county outside of the municipal limits, and does not attach in a case involving an automobile accident occurring within the municipal limits where 'the defendants re- - side in the same county but outside of the municipal limits.
   Snediker, J.

This action was brought in the municipal court of the city of Dayton for the recovery of $250, which the plaintiff below claims was his damage in an accident arising out of the negligence of the defendants below.

After the statement of claim was filed a. summons was issued to the sheriff of Montgomery county, Ohio, the defendants being residents of Englewood in Randolph township. This summons was-returned, “received this writ on the 20th;day of May;. 1921, and oil'the. 21st day-of May, 1921, I served'the same by handing a-.true copy thereof personally to Rolla H. Wellbaum, Roam Wellbaum and Oakland Wellbaum, all personally. . James E Ousick, sheriff, by John P. Freigand, deputy.”

On May 27th, 1921, defendants below through their counsel filed this motion:

“Now comes defendants and enter their appearance solely for the purpose of this motion and not for -any other purpose, move the court to strike the statement of claim from the files for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction over the defendants. ’ ’

Thereafter, on June 15th, 1921, the court overruled the motion to the jurisdiction, and such proceedings were had that a jury impaneled to try the case, returned a verdict against Roam Wellbaum for $125. A motion for new trial was filed and over-i uled, and error is here prosecuted.

The point of contention presented by counsel for Wellbaum is, that the court below erred in overruling the motiqn to jurisdiction filed by defendants.. The accident out of which the claims of the defendant in error arose, occurred in the city of Dayton near the intersection of Jones and Brown streets; and, as we have before said, the defendants below were residents of Englewood.. The claim of the plaintiff in the court below being for $250, was of a character with respect to which as to amount, a justice of the peace would have had jurisdiction, and this was the jurisdiction which could be properly exercised by the municipal court in this case, and, as is provided by Section 1579-54 of the General Code:

‘ ‘ In the actions and proceedings of which the municipal' court has jurisdiction all laws conferring jurisdiction upon * * * a justice of the peace, giving such court # power to hear and determine such causes, prescribing the force and effect of their judgments, orders or decrees, and authorizing or directing the execution or enforcement thereof, shall be held to extend to the municipal 'court, unless inconsistent with this act (municipal court act) or plainly inapplicable.” . .

•. S.o that in order to determine the question before us, it becomes our duty to ascertain whether any law confers jurisdiction upon a'justice of the peace and gives him the, power to hear and determine a ease like the one at bar brought against defendants not residents of Dayton township where'the-,hpcid:ent;has occurred involving defendants’ automobile. The territorial jurisdiction of- the civil branch of the municipal court is made generally plain by Section 1579-46, of the General Code:

“That hereafter the police court in the city of Dayton,shall be a court of record and shall be styled the municipal court of Dayton, and is herenafter dssignated and referred to as the municipal court.”

i

indicating plainly that the territorial jurisdiction of the civil branch of the municipal court of the.pity of D.ayton.is within the limits of the city. ^ .

The rule of law is,

.. “That where a, personal liability is sought to be enforced by judicial proceedings and after written notice, the notice must be personally served on defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the court by whose order or judgment his personal liability is to' be ascertained and fixed unless he voluntary appears or agrees to accept some other form of service.”

It affirmatively appears in this record by stipulation in the entry overruling the motion for a new trial that the plaintiff in error resides in Randolph township and was served by the sheriff of Montgomery county outside of the' city of Dayton.

Recognizing the law to be that jurisdiction is denied in actions in personam over non-residénts on anything short of actual notice given within the territorial limits of the forum, or voluntary appearance there, is there anything in the' code which varies this rule ? Defendant» in error claim that in this behalf they are entitled to the benefit of Section 6308 of the General Code which reads as follows:

“Actions for injury to a person or property caused by the negligence of the owner of a motor vehicle, may be brought, by the person injured, against such owner in the county wherein such, injured person resides. . A summons in such action 'against any defendant or defendants shall be issued to the sheriff of ány county within this state wherein such defendant or defendants reside, and may be served as in other civil actions, notwithstanding any contrary provisions of law for .the service of summons in civil actions.”

. It seems, clear to us that this provision which whs part of an act passed May 9th, 19Q8, "to provide for the registration, idenlification and regulation of motor vehicles,” was intended to furnish a means by which one claiming to be injured through the negligence of a non-resident of his county might bring' his action in the county where such injured person resided,- and we are of the opinion that it is only to such a case that this law ought to be made applicable. When the reason for a law fails, the law itself ought to fail. We can readily see how in traveling about over a state, one who is careless and injures.another, ought not to be entitled to return to his own county and compel the injured to there seek his remedy; but where accidents occur as between parties all of whom live in the same county, there is ample provision made for the bringing of an action by the injured person at a point not'far remote from his .residence.- ■ It may be done either by serving summons within his own township when defendant is not a householder or freeholder, or by bringing the action and serving summons within the township in which the defendant resides; and he always has recourse where the amount involved warrants it, in the common pleas court which has jurisdiction throughout the county, and is generally centrally located.

We cannot extend a jurisdictional section beyond its specific imns. This is a county section and not a township section.

Tn our opinion the motion to the jurisdiction should have been sustained and the judgment is accordingly' reversed.