Case Name: COVERSON, etc. v. CARPENTA, et
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1928-11-05
Citations: 6 Ohio Law Abs. 736
Docket Number: No. 8951
Parties: COVERSON, etc. v. CARPENTA, et.
Judges: (Sullivan, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 6
Pages: 736–737

Head Matter:
COVERSON, etc. v. CARPENTA, et.
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 8951.
Decided Nov. 5, 1928.
Jerome W. Moss, Cleveland, for Coverson.
Nicola & Horn, Cleveland, for Carpenta, et.

Opinion:
LEVINE, J.
The allegations of the petition, in our opinion, charge joint negligence against all the defendants named, and it' also in substance alleges active .particioation in the negligent acts and omissions by all of the defendants complained of.
The Sections of the General Code which permits the service of summons against non-resident defendants in certain cases is Sec. 11282 GC., entitled, "When summons may issue to another county," as follows:
"When the action is rightly brought in any county according to the provisions of the next preceding chapter, a summons may be issued to any other county, against one or more of the defendants, at the plaintiff's request; "
It is conceded that insofar as certain defendants, who were officers and members of the unincorporated society is concerned, that the action was rightfully brought against them in Cuyahoga County, all of them being residents of Cuyahoga County.
The ease of Drea v. Carrington, et al, 32 OS. 595, is pertinent to the point under discussion.
It seems clear that if upon the face of the petition a case is made in which all the defendants are rightfully joined and service is made on one or more in the county where the suit is brought and on the others in another county, the question of the jurisdiction of the court over the persons of the defendants served in such other county, must be raised by answer and that it becomes one of the issues in the case. The trial court is without authority to pass upon the question of jurisdiction . until such answer is filed and the evidence introduced upon all pertinent issues including the question of jurisdiction.
We are of the opinion that the trial court erred in ruling upon the motion as it did, and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court will therefore be reversed with institodtions to overrule the motion to quash, filed by Mike Sanda.
(Sullivan, PJ., and Vickery, J., concur.)