Legal Opinion

Brumbaugh v. Coblentz

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 16, 1934No. 318PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*334OPINION

By THE COURT

It is the claim of plaintiffs in error that of the great number of defendants to the Coblentz cross-petition a few only were served personally; that others were served by leaving a copy of the summons at their usual places of residence but that these defendants did not receive the summons and, finally, that a greater number of defendants who were named were not served at all. Because of this state of service it is claimed by counsel for plaintiffs in error that as to those not served the judgment is void and that as to those who were served in the manner heretofore set…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Ohio Casualty Ins. v. ReeseCity of Dayton Municipal Court · 1970
  2. Simon v. ErvinMeigs County Court of Common Pleas · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API