Case Name: BENDER v. BENDER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1931-04-13
Citations: 10 Ohio Law Abs. 329
Docket Number: No. 2414
Parties: BENDER v BENDER
Judges: LLOYD and WILLIAMS, ,JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 10
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
BENDER v BENDER
Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co
No. 2414.
Decided April 13, 1931
S. S. Burtsfield, Toledo, for E. W. Bender.
E. F. Buckenmeyer, Toledo, for H. W. Bender.

Opinion:
RICHARDS, J.
Sec 11231 GC, provides that an attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to its commencement when the party diligently endeavors to procure service, if such attempt "be followed by service within sixty days.0' The only matter in controversy on this motion is'one relating to the time when the sixty days mentioned in the statute begins to run. The statute itself is not very explicit but, as we construe it, the time would begin to run from the date on which the first summons in error is issued.
In the case under consideration, the first summons in error was issued on June 30, 1930, but no lawful service was made until March 6, 1931. It was directly held, in Gowdy v Roberts, 32 Oh Ap, 38, that time commences to run under this statute on the date the first summons is issued. The same holding was made by the Supreme Court in Armbruster, Admr. v Harrison, 116 Oh St, 490. In the latter case the first summons was issued on February 18, 1926 and the alias summons on April 2nd, a period of forty-three days, which the Supreme Court held to be within time and the opinion shows that the time was computed from the date the original summons was issued. Ross, Sheriff, v Willet, 54 Oh St, 150, is not inconsistent with these decisions, for in that case service was made in less than sixty days from the time the first summons in error was issued.
Motion granted. Proceedings in error dismissed.
LLOYD and WILLIAMS, ,JJ, concur.