Salhany v. Van Sickle

Ohio Court of Appeals

Salhany v. Van Sickle

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 333, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 3, 1926

DocketNo. 1092

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 333 (Salhany v. Van Sickle) 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

Salhany v. Van Sickle, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 333, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried in Summit Common Pleas on an agreed statement of facts as follows:

Van Sickle commenced action against one James A. Salhany in Akron Municipal Court for damages arising out of an automobile accident; that summons was mailed him to his address; that he filed answer; that trial was had and it was determined that.Essa Salhany, plaintiff in this action was the driver of said automobile, that at the conclusion of the evidence, James A. Salhany moved for dismissal; that Van Sickle moved to substitute the name of Essa Salhany as defendant, that court allowed such motion and judgment was rendered against the said Essa Salhany.

Salhany now contends that as no summons was issued upon him, and as he never appeared in court, the judgment rendered against him in Akron Municipal Court is void, and therefore prays for injunction against Van Sickle to prevent him from enforcing said judgment. Injunction was denied in common pleas court and Salhany appealed. Court of Appeals held:

1. It is essential, to render a judgment valid, that court rendering same, have jurisdiction of the party against whom it is rendered.

2. The original action having been started against one party, another cannot be substituted without service of summons.

3. Service never having been had on Salhany, and he never having entered appearance, judgment rendered against him is void and injunction granted to restrain enforcement thereof.

Judgment of Common Pleas reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was tried in Summit Common Pleas on an agreed statement of facts as follows:

Van Sickle commenced action against one James A. Salhany in Akron Municipal Court for damages arising out of an automobile accident; that summons was mailed him to his address; that he filed answer; that trial was had and it was determined that.Essa Salhany, plaintiff in this action was the driver of said automobile, that at the conclusion of the evidence, James A. Salhany moved for dismissal; that Van Sickle moved to substitute the name of Essa Salhany as defendant, that court allowed such motion and judgment was rendered against the said Essa Salhany.

Salhany now contends that as no summons was issued upon him, and as he never appeared in court, the judgment rendered against him in Akron Municipal Court is void, and therefore prays for injunction against Van Sickle to prevent him from enforcing said judgment. Injunction was denied in common pleas court and Salhany appealed. Court of Appeals held:

1. It is essential, to render a judgment valid, that court rendering same, have jurisdiction of the party against whom it is rendered.

2. The original action having been started against one party, another cannot be substituted without service of summons.

3. Service never having been had on Salhany, and he never having entered appearance, judgment rendered against him is void and injunction granted to restrain enforcement thereof.

Judgment of Common Pleas reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Ohio Law. Abs. 333, 1926 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salhany-v-van-sickle-ohioctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack