Knight v. Schlachter

Ohio Court of Appeals

Knight v. Schlachter

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 196

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1927

DocketNo. 406

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 196 (Knight v. Schlachter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knight v. Schlachter, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 196 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

[197]*197OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

RICHARDS, J.

The record discloses that no service was made on the defendant Schlachter within the two-year period fixed by 10772 GC., and no summons was served on him until about six months after the expiration of such period. It is. urged, however, that by virtue of the provisions of 11230 GC., the service made on his co-defendant, Entsminger, saved the right of action as to him.

The argument is that Schlachter. and Ent’s-minger were “united in interest” within the meaning of that statute. According to the averments of the petition they were not conspiring or acting designedly in concert to bring about the collision which resulted in the injury to the decedent, for they were driving separate vehicles in opposite directions. McCord v. McCord, 104 Ohio St. 274; Moore v. Chittenden, 39 OS. 563.

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

[197]*197OPINION OF COURT.

The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

RICHARDS, J.

The record discloses that no service was made on the defendant Schlachter within the two-year period fixed by 10772 GC., and no summons was served on him until about six months after the expiration of such period. It is. urged, however, that by virtue of the provisions of 11230 GC., the service made on his co-defendant, Entsminger, saved the right of action as to him.

The argument is that Schlachter. and Ent’s-minger were “united in interest” within the meaning of that statute. According to the averments of the petition they were not conspiring or acting designedly in concert to bring about the collision which resulted in the injury to the decedent, for they were driving separate vehicles in opposite directions. McCord v. McCord, 104 Ohio St. 274; Moore v. Chittenden, 39 OS. 563.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ohio Law. Abs. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-schlachter-ohioctapp-1927.