Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_18/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SERVICE UPON A RAILWAY COMPANY IN ANOTHER. COUNTY.
    Circuit Court of Franklin County.
    The State of Ohio, ex rel Attorney-General, v. The Hocking Valley Railroad Company et al.
    Decided, December 2, 1912.
    1. A return of service of summons upon an agent of a railway company is defective, if it is does not show that the agent served was the agent of the company in the county in which the service was made and that the road runs into or through that county.
    2. It is within the option of-a party'causing a summons to issue to another county to fix the return day on the third or fourth Monday, when he has reason to believe the usual return day will not allow time for service.
    
      Timothy 8. Hogan, Attorney-General, M. A. Daugherty and Frank Davis, for plaintiff.
    
      Lawrence Maxwell, for C. & 0. Railway Co.
    
      Wilson & Rector, for H. V. Railway Co.
    
      Doyle & Lewis, for L. S. & M. S. Railway Co.
    
      T. P. Linn, for K. & M. Railway Co.
    Dustin, J.; Ferneding, J., and Allread, T., concur.
    Heard on motion to quash service on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company.
   We are of the opinion that the third point urged in behalf of the motion to quash the service on the Chesapeake & Ohio is well taken, viz., that the return does not show service upon defendant’s agent in a county through or into which such road passes; or that the agent served was an agent in said county.

Nor does the fact appear in the petition that the said defendant operates its road in Hamilton county; and we can not take judicial knowledge of it.

We construe Section 11283, General Code, as permitting the party causing a summons to be issued to another county to have it returnable on the third or fourth Monday, at his option, if he finds or believes that the fixing of the usual return day will not allow sufficient time for service.

It is entirely for the benefit of the party issuing the service, and the party served can not complain if the earlier and usual day is selected.

Motion to quash service sustained.