Hixon v. Vail

Ohio Supreme Court

Hixon v. Vail

85 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 16, 1912·No. No. 12868·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The second summons and the service thereunder were too late to be of any avail to the plaintiff in error as a commencement of the proceeding in error. There was no service under the first summons, during the life of the writ; and the pretended service after the writ was returned by the sheriff was more than sixty days thereafter and more than four months from the entry of the judgment in the court of common pleas. Sections 11231 and 12270, General Code. Nor does it appear that there was a diligent effort to obtain service followed by service within sixty days.

The judgment of the circuit is

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., Spear, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ,, concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The second summons and the service thereunder were too late to be of any avail to the plaintiff in error as a commencement of the proceeding in error. There was no service under the first summons, during the life of the writ; and the pretended service after the writ was returned by the sheriff was more than sixty days thereafter and more than four months from the entry of the judgment in the court of common pleas. Sections 11231 and 12270, General Code. Nor does it appear that there was a diligent effort to obtain service followed by service within sixty days.

The judgment of the circuit is

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., Spear, Shauck, Price, Johnson and Donahue, JJ,, concur.

Hixon v. Vail, 85 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325 (Ohio 1912).

Pincite

85 Ohio St. (N.S.) 325 (Hixon v. Vail) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.