Case Name: The Columbus Wholesale Company v. T. H. Brown
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1921-11-10
Citations: 32 Ohio C.A. 326
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Columbus Wholesale Company v. T. H. Brown.
Judges: Shields, J., and Patterson, J., concpir.
Reporter: Ohio Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 326–328

Head Matter:
JURISDICTION OF ACTIONS ON SMALL PROMISSORY NOTES.
Court of Appeals for Perry County.
The Columbus Wholesale Company v. T. H. Brown.
Decided, November 10, 1921.
Several Causes United in One Petition — Become but One Cause of Action — When There is Nothing to Show that They did not Arise out of the Same Transaction — Statute Liberally Construed to Prevent Multiplicity of Suits.
A petition filed in the common picas court for recovery of $220 with interest, alleged to be due on four promissory notes each of which is for less than $100, presents but a single cause of action and is not open to demurrer.

Opinion:
ÍÍOUCK* J.
This case is here on error from the common pleas court of Perry county.The basis of the suit was to recover the sum of $220, with interest at six per cent, from October 10, 1918, the said sum alleged to be due and owing on four promissory notes executed by the defendant and made payable to the plaintiff.
The record in this ease, as appears from the journal entry in the common pleas court, entering judgment against the plaintiff and dismissing its petition, reads as follows:
"This day the attention of the court being called to the- fact that plaintiff's petition contains four causes of action and that each of said causes of action are less than the sum of $100, the court finds that there is no jurisdiction in this court to hear and determine the matters set up in saiid petition, and the court therefore dismisses plaintiff's petition at costs of plaintiff and judgment is rendered against plaintiff for costs and execution is awarded against said plaintiff."
The question here presented is, did the trial judge err in dismissing plaintiff's petition? An inspection of the pettion discloses the fact that but one cause of action appears therein, and not four. In other words the four notes are set forth in one cause of action and a judgment is prayed for in the sum of $220, with interest.
No motion was filed 'by the defendant to make said petition more definite or certain, and we further find that no motion was filed requiring plaintiff to separately state and number its causes of action if more than one was claimed.
Therefore the question presented by the record for determination by this court is, did the common pleas court have jurisdiction to heai' and determine the matters set up in said petition?
Section 11215 of the General Code of Ohio providesi::
'1 The court of common pleas shall have original jurisdiction in all civil eases where the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the exclusive original jurisdiction of justices of the peace . "
It will be observed that by the provisions of said section of the General Code, the common pleas court shall have original jurisdiction in all civil cases where the sum in dispute exceeds $100, which sum is the limit of the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.
Section 11306 of the General Code- provides:
'1 The plaintiff may unite several causes of action in the same petition, whether they are legal or equitable, or both, when they are included in any of the following classes. First, the same transaction. Second, transáctions connected with the same subject matter, etc., etc."
As has already been stated, no motion having been filed to require plaintiff to separately state and number its causes of action or to make its petition more definite and certain, therefore it appears on the face of the petition that there is but one cause of action, and further there is nothing in the petition to affirmatively show or disclose that the several notes set out in said cause of action do not arise out of the same transactions or that they are not connected with the same subject of action, and therefore as against a demurrer t'o said petition we are bound to hold and do hold that said petition is good.
fflm. Frielich, for plaintiff in error.
Jno. T. Ryle,- contra.
We think the rule is well settled in Ohio that the amount' claimed in the petition determines the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas.
In the case of Brumaugh v. Worley, 6 O. S., page 598, Judge Swan, speaking for the court says:
' ' The jurisdiction of the court of common pleas depends upon the amount claimed in the petition. If that be less than $100 the court has no jurisdiction."
The rule in Ohio is well settled that pleadings are liberally construed, and our Supreme Court has so stated with reference to the statutory provisions governing this case, as appears in the case of Railroad Company v. Cook, 37 O. S., page 272, where the judge announcing the opinion stated:
"There is no doubt that this section should be construed liberally for the purpose of preventing multiplicity of actions."
It follows from what we have already said that we are of the opinion that the petition in question contained but one cause of action and the amount sought to be recovered, $220, with interest, is clearly within the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, and that the judgment of said court in dismissing said petition was erroneous and prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff in error.
Judgment of the common pleas court reversed and case remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.
Shields, J., and Patterson, J., concpir.