Bobo v. Bell

Ohio Supreme Court

Bobo v. Bell

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1960

DocketNo. 36374

StatusPublished

This text of 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311 (Bobo v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bobo v. Bell, 171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311 (Ohio 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Was the action commenced or attempted to be commenced within the period of two years following the accident, within the meaning of Section 2305.17, Revised Code?

A minor can be sued and served with process only in the manner prescribed by Section 2703.13, Revised Code. The purported service of March 1, 1958, and return were made when defendant was a minor and as though he were an adult. The statutory requirements were not complied with within the two-year period, and the motions above referred to filed by defendant cannot be construed as a waiver of the statutory requirements.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of Juhasz v. Corson, Jr., ante, 218.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Was the action commenced or attempted to be commenced within the period of two years following the accident, within the meaning of Section 2305.17, Revised Code?

A minor can be sued and served with process only in the manner prescribed by Section 2703.13, Revised Code. The purported service of March 1, 1958, and return were made when defendant was a minor and as though he were an adult. The statutory requirements were not complied with within the two-year period, and the motions above referred to filed by defendant cannot be construed as a waiver of the statutory requirements.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed on authority of Juhasz v. Corson, Jr., ante, 218.

Judgment affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Taet, Matthias, Bell, Herbert and Peck, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Ohio St. (N.S.) 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobo-v-bell-ohio-1960.