Sexton v. Sugar Creek Packing Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Sexton v. Sugar Creek Packing Co.

307 N.E.2d 541, 37 Ohio St. 2d 58, 66 Ohio Op. 2d 161, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 190

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 13, 1974

DocketNo. 73-512

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 307 N.E.2d 541 (Sexton v. Sugar Creek Packing Co.) 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

Sexton v. Sugar Creek Packing Co., 307 N.E.2d 541, 37 Ohio St. 2d 58, 66 Ohio Op. 2d 161, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 190 (Ohio 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is defendants’ contention that where, as here, a husband and wife, through the same attorney, file separate actions in two different courts against the same defendants, and the incident giving rise to both actions is identical, the defendants’ appearance in one court constitutes an appearance in the other court.

Such is not the case. An appearance by a defendant in one court does not constitute an “appearance” in another, entirely different, court.

Because defendants did not enter an appearance in the Municipal Court, after having been personally served with summons and a cdpy of the petition, they were not entitled to notice of the default proceedings. Civ. R. 55(A).

Accordingly, the Municipal Court was not in error in refusing to vacate the default judgment more than one year after the judgment was taken. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the overruling of defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment, is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Hebbeet, Cobbigan, Steen, Celebeezze, W. Beown and P. Beown, JJ., concur.

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