Case Name: OLDROYD et v. WILLIS et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1934-06-25
Citations: 17 Ohio Law Abs. 627
Docket Number: No 4638
Parties: OLDROYD et v WILLIS et
Judges: RICHARDS, J, (6th Dist) sitting by designation.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 17
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
OLDROYD et v WILLIS et
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 4638.
Decided June 25, 1934
Harry Neal Smith, Cincinnati, for plaintiffs in error.
Coleman Avery, Cincinnati, for defendants in error.
RICHARDS, J, (6th Dist) sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION
By RICHARDS, J.
The petition was apparently drawn under the provisions of law authorizing the setting aside of a judgment obtained by fraud. §11292, GC, provides in what kind of actions service of summons may be made by publication, and in paragraph 11 of the section provides, among other things, that it may be had in an action "to impeach a judgment or order for fraud." The succeeding section, §11293 GC, reads as follows:
"Before service by publication can be made, an affidavit must be filed that service of summons can not be made within this state on the defendant sought to be served, and that the case is one of those mentioned in the next preceeding section."
The affidavit which was filed in this case to obtain service by publication complies fully and completely with the requirements of the above quoted section.
Tire trial court in quashing the service of summons manifestly gave critical examination to the language of the petition. It evidently concluded that the averments of the petition were not sufficient to constitute such a fraud as would justify sendee of summons by publication. We think that on a motion to quash service of summons by publication in a case of this kind, reference should be had only to the sufficiency of the affidavit for such service. The statutes provide simple and appropriate means for testing the sufficiency of a pleading by motion and demurrer, and it would be injecting a new element into the practice of the law if a defendant who denied the validity of the service upon him by publication could thus assail the sufficiency of the petition, and at the same time not enter his' appearance. If he should demur generally to the petition, it would of course enter his appearance, and he cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he is prohibited from doing directly.
In disposing of this case the court is not determining whether the petition does or does not state a cause of action; that can be determined later, in the manner provided by law.
In the judgment of this court, the trial court was in error in quashing the service of summons, and the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment reversed.
HAMILTON, J, concurs.