Case Name: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Tom Baillie, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925
Citations: 3 Ohio Law Abs. 331
Docket Number: No. 18831
Parties: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Tom Baillie, et al.
Judges: Marshall, C. J., Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur. Jones, Day and Kinkade, JJ., disseiit..
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 3
Pages: 331–331

Head Matter:
No. 18831
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Tom Baillie, et al.
Error to the Court bf Appeals of Cuyahoga County.
27. ACTION—1. Under 11273 GC„ maintenance of action in. this state, not precluded . against railroad company siiéd. ■ jointly and rightfully with another corporation; when injuries occurred and plaintiff resided in another . state.
. .2. Syllabus of a decision must be taken with i reference to facts upon which it is predicated. ¡

Opinion:
MATTHIAS, J.
' 1. The provisions of Section 11273, General Code, do not preclude the maintenance' of an ¡ aetion in a county of this state against a rail- ; road company by a resident of another state ; for injuries to person or property though oc- ¡ curring elsewhere than in this state, where ( the injury complained of resulted from the joint negligence of such railroad company and . another corporation which are joined as defendants in an action which is properly brought against the latter defendant in such county.'
2. The syllabus of a decision of the supreme court of Ohio definitely states the law of Ohio with reference to the facts upon which it is predicated, and must be read in view of the facts found in such case.
Judgment affirmed.
Marshall, C. J., Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur. Jones, Day and Kinkade, JJ., disseiit..