Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Copenhaver
This text of 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 69 (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Copenhaver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The chief clerk of the superintendent of a railroad CSfpófá/ tion is not a chief officer upon whom service of summons is am thorized by Section 5041, Revised Statutes, and service upon such person as an officer of the Pennsylvania Company is not even an attempt to serve the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.; hence the substitution of the latter company for the former as defendant upon motion of the plaintiff. and the amendment of the return of the sheriff are unauthorized to effect the appearance of such defendant.
Where it appears that the court has no jurisdiction -of the person of the defendant in six separate actions growing out of the same alleged negligent act of the defendant, which are prosecuted by the same plaintiff, as administrator of six estates, a court of equity will intervene by injunction to prevent a multiplicity of suits and vexatious litigátion which can result only in void judgments. Scofield v. Railway Co., 43 O. S., 571; Greene v. Railway Co., 62 O. S., 67; High on Injunctions, Section 12.
The injunction prayed for will therefore be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 69, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburgh-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railway-co-v-copenhaver-ohcircthamilton-1908.