Case Name: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OF PIKE COUNTY, v. SERGEANT AND CHENOWITH, SURVIVOR OF CHENOWITH
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-04
Citations: 1 Wright 482
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OF PIKE COUNTY, v. SERGEANT AND CHENOWITH, SURVIVOR OF CHENOWITH.
Judges: JUDGES — COLLETT AND WRIGHT.
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
*PIKE COUNTY,
APRIL TERM, 1834.
JUDGES — COLLETT AND WRIGHT.
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OF PIKE COUNTY, v. SERGEANT AND CHENOWITH, SURVIVOR OF CHENOWITH.
Pleading — inducement—innuendo—jurisdiction where the court is a party.
Where the right of action depends upon extrinsic matter, the declaration discloses no title to recover unless such matter he introduced by way of inducement; the allusion to it by way of innuendo is not sufficient.
Quere, if the Court of Common Pleas can hold jurisdiction of a case in which they are parties?
Debt. The writ was issued in the Court of Common Pleas, and returned served as to Chenowith, and not found as to Sergeant. The declaration is upon a penal.bond for $4,000, dated the lYth April, 1835, and conditioned that Sergeant should perform his duties as director of the town of Piketon. The breaches assigned are, the neglect of duty, and the receipt of money which had not been paid over.
The defendant demurred generally.
Bond, for the demurrant,
contended that the declaration did not aver that Sergeant had been appointed director of any place. There is no inducement, or anything showing either that the office of director had been created, or that Sergeant had been appointed to fill it; and therefore no title to recover is shown.
2. There is a want of jurisdiction; for the Court of Common Pleas could have none, where it was a party. He cited 14 O. L. 257, 8.
S. M. Tracy and Douglas, contra,
insisted that the averment (by way of innuendo) was sufficient to show the creation of the office and the officer, as it referred to the statute.
2. That the act of assembly expressly authorizes the Court of Common Pleas to take the bond, and gives no direction who shall be the obligee; of course they may take it to themselves.
3. The Court of Common Pleas are a corporation, and as such may perform the duties assigned them, and hold jurisdiction of suits in their own name. They cited 1 O. 176; 4 O. L. 164.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
The declaration lays no inducement to the introduction of the bond and breach. The condition of the bond recites that he was appointed a director, the pleader adds in the declaration (meaning of the town of Pihetoii), as an innuendo is inserted in a count in slander. The rule is, that where the right of action depends upon extrinsic matter, that matter must be shown by aver-*ment as inducement; this is not done in the case [483 before us. The innuendo does not operate as an averment, or supply its place. The declaration is therefore bad. There is difficulty as to the Common Pleas holding jurisdiction of a casein which it is a party — one cannot sit as a judge in his own case.
We give leave to amend, on payment of costs, to supply the averment and reserve the case upon the other points to bank.