Case Name: J. B. Bazell et al. v. Belcher & Doral
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1877-12
Citations: 31 Ohio St. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. B. Bazell et al. v. Belcher & Doral.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 31
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
J. B. Bazell et al. v. Belcher & Doral.
Section 77 of the code authorizes a judgment against such joint contractors as have been “ served ” with summons in the action, in those cases only, where the action was commenced by the filing of a petition and the issuing of a summons against all of the joint contractors.
Motion for leave to file a petition in error to the District Court of Lawrence county.
The defendants in error commenced an action in the ■Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence county, against J. B. Bazell, Martin Bazell, and W. A. Simonton, as partners •under the firm name of J. B. Bazell & Co., to recover the price and value of goods sold and delivered. Upon the filing of the petition, a summons was issued arid served upon J. B. Bazell and W. A. Simonton. J. B. Bazell filed an answer, in the nature of a plea in abatement, alleging that Martin Bazell was not a member of the firm, but that the firm of J. B. Bazell & Co. was composed of himself, "W. A. Simonton, W. H. Bazell, and A. J. Manford, and that ~W. H. Bazell and A. J. Manford were still living.
Afterward the plaintifis, upon leave, filed an amended petition, and declared, upon this same account, against J. B. Bazell, ~W. H. Bazell, W. A. Simonton, and A. J. Man-ford, as partners under the name of J. B. Bazell & Co.
Upon this state of pleading, but without further process, judgment was rendered, as upon default, against J. B. Bazell and "W. A. Simonton, who afterward prosecuted proceedings in error in the district court, wherein the judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed. They now seek to reverse both judgments below.
J. L. Anderson, for the motion.
O. J?. Moore, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
In an action upon a joint contract, all who are jointly liable must be joined. In this respect the rule of the common law has not been changed by our code. These propositions are not disputed by defendants in error, but they contend that, under section 77 of the code, the judgments below were authorized. • It is provided by that section that " where the action is against two or more defendants, and one or more shall have been served, but not all of them, the plaintiff may proceed as follows: 1. If the-action be against defendants jointly indebted on contract, he may proceed against the defendants served, unless the court otherwise direct," etc.
We do not understand that this section was intended to modify the common law practice. The mistake of defendant's counsel, as well as of the courts below, consists-in placing too much stress on the word " served," and not enough on the word " action," as contained in this section. The action below was against only two of the four joint contracting parties. The filing of a petition alone does' not amount to " an action." The 55th section of the code provides: " A civil action must be commenced by filing in the office of the clerk of the proper court a petition, and' causing a summons to issue thereon." It is true, the amended petition charged W. H. Bazell and A. J. Manford. as being jointly indebted with J. B. Bazell and W. A. Simonton, but no summons was issued against the former. While, therefore, it is true that the latter were " served," it is not true that " an action " was commenced against the former. Hence section 77 did not authorize the judgment against those of the joint contractors who were served with summons. To authorize the judgment .as rendered, summons should not only have been issued against the other-joint contractors, but should also have been returned " not found."
Motion granted. J udgments of the co urts below reversed,, and cause remanded to common pleas for further proceedings.