Opinion
No. 38462
Decided April 22, 1964.
Service of summons — Praecipe — Action for money only — Failure to state in praecipe or summons amount sought — Summons otherwise proper and properly served — Sufficient to give court jurisdiction.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County.
On August 4, 1961, plaintiff filed a petition and praecipe for summons in the Common Pleas Court of Ottawa County against two defendants, praying for damages against those defendants for $35,808 for personal injuries alleged to have been proximately caused on August 25, 1959, by the negligence of the defendants.
The praecipe directed the clerk of courts to "issue summons" directing the sheriff to serve each defendant. The praecipe contained no instructions as to any endorsement to be made upon the summons either as to the nature of the action or the amount claimed, and no such endorsement was made on the summons.
On or before August 11, 1961, sheriff's returns showed personal service of a summons on each defendant.
On September 1, 1961, each defendant filed a motion to quash the service of summons on it.
On September 18, 1961, plaintiff filed an alias praecipe directing the clerk to issue an alias summons for each defendant and to "endorse thereon: `action for money only, amount claimed: $35,808 and for costs.'" This was done, and the two defendants were served with that alias summons on or before October 2, 1961.
Thereafter, the motion of each defendant to quash the service of summons on it was granted, and an order was made quashing that service of summons.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that order of the Common Pleas Court was apparently treated as a judgment and was reversed, and the record was certified to this court, the judgment of the Court of Appeals having been found to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Madison County in Sexton v. New York Central Rd. Co. (1959), 112 Ohio App. 498, 172 N.E.2d 167.
Messrs. Reams, Bretherton Neipp, for appellee.
Messrs. Moon Wilber, for appellants.
If, as the parties apparently concede, the order of the Common Pleas Court was a final appealable order, it is apparent that our decision in Shilling v. Octavio (this day decided), 176 Ohio St. 123, requires affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, YOUNGER, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.
YOUNGER, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of MATTHIAS, J.