Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., s. 70-392
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | STRAUSBAUGH; C. WILLIAM O'NEILL; STRAUSBAUGH, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for CORRIGAN |
| Citation | 56 O.O.2d 179,272 N.E.2d 127,27 Ohio St.2d 303 |
| Parties | , 56 O.O.2d 179 LANTSBERRY, Appellee, v. The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al. WISE, Appellee, v. The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al. |
| Docket Number | 70-393,Nos. 70-392,s. 70-392 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1971 |
Page 303
v.
The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al.
WISE, Appellee,
v.
The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al.
[272 N.E.2d 128] Syllabus by the Court
1. A judgment of a trial court sustaining motions to quash service of summons and dismissing defendants as parties
Page 304
to the action is a final appealable order, as is likewise the ruling of a Court of Appeals reversing such order.2. Where there is no proof of record establishing the existence of minimal contacts between Ohio and a nonresident corporation at the time service of summons on the corporation was made under R.C. §§ 2307.382 and 2307.383, a motion to quash such service should be sustained.
3. Where an injury occurs in a foreign jurisdiction, the running of the statute of limitations is not tolled by the absence of the defendant from the state of Ohio. (Wentz v. Richardson, 165 Ohio St. 558, 138 N.E.2d 675, followed.)
4. R.C. §§ 2307.382 and 2307.383 are not applicable to a cause of action which was both filed and barred by the statute of limitations prior to the effective date of such sections.
On December 6, 1963, the plaintiffs in these cases consolidated for hearing, Richard Lantsberry and Robert P. Wise, filed petitions in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, alleging that the failure of a portable heater on a camping trip in the state of Pennsylvania on December 9, 1961, caused them to suffer injuries consisting of frostbite. Petitions were filed in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County three days before the running of the statute of limitation in 1963. The original defendants in these actions included the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, of London, England. The record indicates that service was obtained on all of the codefendants except the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, and that service was not obtained upon the latter within 60 days, as then required by R.C. § 2305.17. Nearly two years later, R.C. §§ 2307.382 and 2307.383, commonly called the long-arm statutes, were enacted,
Page 305
becoming effective September 28, 1965. Under those sections, the plaintiffs filed an alias praecipe, naming among other new defendants, the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, Belfast, North Ireland, and the Tilley Lamp Company (U. S. A.), Limited.Under the long-arm statutes, on December 9, 1965, plaintiffs filed alias praecipes and service was made on the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, of London, England, and two new defendants, the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, Belfast, North Ireland, and the Tilley Lamp Company (U. S. A.), Limited. In each case, the three Tilley Lamp companies filed a motion to quash service of summons, which the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, in 1966, overruled. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, in 1967, overruled plaintiffs' motions to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the overruling of the motion to quash is not a final appealable order, and found that there was no jurisdiction over the Tilley Lamp companies and reversed the judgments of the Common Pleas Court.
Upon appeal, this court (14 Ohio St.2d 41, 236 N.E.2d 530) held that an order [272 N.E.2d 129] overruling the motion to quash was not a final appealable order and that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review.
Upon return of the cases, the Common Pleas Court vacated its prior rulings and sustained the motions to quash service of summons and dismissed the three Tilley Lamp companies as parties. On May 19, 1970, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgments of the Court of Common Pleas and remanded the causes to the trial court, with instructions to overrule the motions to quash.
The cases are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of motions by the Tilley Lamp Companies to certify the records in both cases.
Ellis B. Brannon, and Joseph M. Mancini, Cleveland, for appellees.
Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell, and Ron Tonidandel, Cleveland, for appellants.
Page 306
STRAUSBAUGH, Justice.
Appellees claim that since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crown Servs., Inc. v. Miami Valley Paper Tube Co., 2019-0665
...branch thereof.’ " Noble v. Colwell , 44 Ohio St.3d 92, 94, 540 N.E.2d 1381 (1989), quoting Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., Ltd. , 27 Ohio St.2d 303, 306, 272 N.E.2d 127 (1971).{¶ 14} R.C. 2505.02(B) defines a final order and provides: An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed......
-
The City of Riverside v. State , 10AP–126.
...A final order “is one disposing of the whole case or some separate and distinct branch thereof.” Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 303, 306, 56 O.O.2d 179, 272 N.E.2d 127. A trial court's order is final and appealable only if it satisfies the requirements of R.C. 2505.02 a......
-
In re Grand Jury Case, 95-LW-3820
...that it will not be necessary to bring the cause before the court for further proceedings. See Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 303, 306; Teaff v. Hewitt (1853), 1 Ohio St. 511, 520. We need not engage in any long and protracted analysis of this portion of the statute wit......
-
Lachman v. Bank of Louisiana in New Orleans, C80-1776.
...could assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant at the time jurisdiction is sought to be asserted. Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 303, 272 N.E.2d 127 In World-Wide Volkswagen Co., supra, the Supreme Court declined to permit the courts of Oklahoma to assert jurisdiction o......