Brumbaugh v. Coblentz
Ohio Court of Appeals
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
- Ohio Casualty Ins. v. ReeseCity of Dayton Municipal Court · 1970
- Simon v. ErvinMeigs County Court of Common Pleas · 1959