Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 41080,41081,s. 41080 |
| Parties | , 43 O.O.2d 111 LANTSBERRY, Appellant, v. The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellees et al. WISE, Appellant, v. The TILLEY LAMP CO., Ltd., et al., Appellees et al., |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On December 6, 1963, the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases, Richard Lantsberry and Robert P. Wise, filed petitions in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the failure of a portable heater on a camping trip caused them to suffer frostbite. The original defendants in these actions included the Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, of London, England. Nearly two years later, Sections 2307.382 and 2307.383, Revised Code, commonly called the long-arm statutes, were enacted. Under those sections the plaintiffs filed an alias precipe, naming, among other new defendants, The Tilley Lamp Company, Limited, Belfast, North Ireland, and The Tilley Lamp Company (U.S.A.), Limited.
In each case, after the necessary service was made, the three Tilley Lamp companies filed a motion to quash service of summons, the Court of Common Pleas overruled the motion, and the Tilley Lamp companies filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs filed motions to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the overruling of a motion to quash is not a final appealable order. The Court of Appeals overruled the motions to dismiss, and, on the merits, found that there was no jurisdiction over the Tilley Lamp companies, and reversed the judgments of the Common Pleas Court.
The plaintiffs are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of motions to certify the records.
Ellis B. Brannon, Cleveland, and J. William McCray, Elyria, for appellants.
Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell and Ron Tonidandel, Cleveland, for appellees.
We do not reach the merits of these causes because we find that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the order of the trial court. An order overruling a motion to quash is not a final appealable order. State, ex rel. Gregory, v. Masheter, 3 Ohio St.2d 43, 208 N.E.2d 926; Tonio v. Lett & Co. of Indiana, Inc., 65 Ohio App. 304, 29 N.E.2d 814; Section 6, Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
The defendants argue that the order of the trial court is appealable, even if it is interlocutory, because it is the result of an abuse of discretion, but the legal basis of this argument was found to be unsound in Klein v. Bendix-Westing-house Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 85, 234 N.E.2d 587. An abuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Northern Ohio Tel. Co. v. Winter
...appeal from that order would be an adequate remedy because neither the overruling of a motion to quash (Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 14 Ohio St.2d 41, 236 N.E.2d 530; State, ex rel. Gregory, v. Masheter, 3 Ohio St.2d 43, 208 N.E.2d 926); nor the overruling of a motion to dissolve a tempor......
-
Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.
...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 overruling the motion to quash was not a final appealable order and that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdictio......
-
Toot v. Pitello, 2006 Ohio 4863 (Ohio App. 9/12/2006)
...Court has held that "[a]n order overruling a motion to quash is not a final appealable order." Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co. (1968) 14 Ohio St.2d 41, 42, 43 O.O.2d 111, 236 N.E.2d 530. However, that case was decided more than thirty years prior to July 22, 1998 (the effective date of the cu......
-
Ohio Council 8, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Afl-Cio v. Ohio Department of Mental Health
... ... not determine the action or prevent a judgment. See ... generally Lantsberry v. The Tilley Lamp Co., Ltd ... (1968), 14 Ohio St. 2d 41, 236 N.E. 2d 530 (overruling ... ...