Case Name: TINKER v. WARNER et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1935-03-22
Citations: 20 Ohio Law Abs. 622
Docket Number: No 404
Parties: TINKER v WARNER et
Judges: KUNKLE, PJ, and BARNES, J, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 20
Pages: 622–625

Head Matter:
TINKER v WARNER et
Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Greene Co
No 404.
Decided March 22, 1935
John P. Phillips, Jr., Chillicothe, for plaintiff in error.
Marshall & Marshall, Xenia, for defendant in error, Warner.

Opinion:
OPINION
By HORNBECK, J.
No cases are cited by either party, but it is the claim of counsel for plaintiff that the action is properly lodged against the defendant company under §11272 GC, that the action was joint and that it was proper to join defendant Tinker with the defendant company.
Sec 11272 GC provides in part:
"An action other than one of those mentioned in the next four preceding sections, against a corporation created under the laws of this state, may be brought . If such corporation is an inusrance company in the county wherein the cause of action or some part thereof arose;".
The evidence shows that the contract, whereby beneficiary was to be changed in five years, was entered into in Greene County. It also appears that the agent for the company in Greene County was instructed, prior to the issuance of the policy, that at the end of five years the beneficiary was to be changed to the husband of plaintiff if living or if dead to the plaintiff. This was a part of the agreement and understanding to which plaintiff and Tinker were also parties. Pursuant to this agreement the agent did, by letter, notify the company of the agreement. This would permit of a finding that the cause of action was joint. We are of opinion that the defendant company and defendant Tinker, were properly joined in Greene County.
On the claim that the judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence we find that the record presents conflict of testmony and claims, but that the determination of the trial judge was well within his province and is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
The judgment, therefore, will be affirmed.
KUNKLE, PJ, and BARNES, J, concur.