Morrison v. Steiner

Decision Date06 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-140,72-140
Citation61 O.O.2d 335,32 Ohio St.2d 86,290 N.E.2d 841
Parties, 61 O.O.2d 335 MORRISON et al., Appellees, v. STEINER, Appellant.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon it merits; venue connotes the locality where the suit should be heared.

2. The delineation of proper venue is a procedural matter and is within the rule-making power of the Ohio Supreme Court. Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.

3. Civ.R. 4.6(A) authorizes the issuance of statewide service of process by an Ohio municipal court where both proper venue and subject-matter jurisdiction are present.

4. Civ.R. 4.1(2) establishes the method by which a municipal court may effect personal service upon a defendant found outside its territory.

In August 1963, appellant, Elmer J. Steiner, of Van Buren, Hancock County, Ohio, went to the residence of appellees, Allyn J. and Dorothy Morrison, in Oregon, Lucas County, Ohio, to inspect some bee-keeping equipment which appellees were then offering for sale. Appellant eventually agreed to purchase the equipment for $1,500, making a downpayment of $50 cash, and, signing a promissory note for $1,450. Thereafter, in serveral separate trips, appellant hauled the equipment back to his home.

On April 10, 1970, appellees filed a petition in the Findlay Municipal Court against appellant, seeking judgment for the amount of the note plus interest. That action was eventually dismissed upon the appellees' own motion.

On September 10, 1970, appellees filed the same cause of action against appellant in the Oregon Municipal Court. Appellant moved to quash service of process and to dismiss the complaint, upon the grounds that the Oregon court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, did not have jurisdiction over his person, and that the matter was not properly venued there. The motion was denied, the cause was tried and judgment was entered against appellant in the amount prayed for. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, and the cause is now before this court pursuant to our allowance of appellant's motion to certify the record.

Kolb, Kolb & Kolb and Matt Kolb, Jr., Toledo, for appellees.

Russell E. Rakestraw, Findlay, for appellant.

HERBERT, Justice.

Appellant contends that Civ.R. 3(B) cannot constitutionally provide for the issuance by a municipal court of service of process beyond its statutorily prescribed territorial boundaries. However, appellant misconceives the nature of municipal court subject-matter jurisdiction (as opposed to territorial boundaries) and how the Rules of Civil Procedure operate within the limits imposed upon that jurisdiction by the General Assembly.

Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits, while venue connotes the locality where the suit should be heard. See Fireproof Construction v. Brenner-Bell (1949), 152 Ohio St. 347, 89 N.E.2d 472; New York, Chicago & St. Louis Rd. Co. v. Matzinger (1940), 136 Ohio St. 271, 25 N.E.2d 349; Loftus v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. (1923), 107 Ohio St. 352, 140 N.E. 94. Subject-matter jurisdiction defines the competency of a court to render a valid judgment in a particular action. See McCormac, Venue-' New' Concepts in Ohio, 39 Cincinnati L.Rev. 474; Field and Kaplan, Civil Procedure (2d Ed.) 737.

Subject-matter jurisdiction of Ohio municipal courts is created and defined by R.C. § 1901.18, which provides, inter alia, that 'a municipal court has original jurisdiction within its territory * * * (C) in any action at law based on contract * * *.' The monetary limit on the instant action is provided by R.C. § 1901.17, which states that 'a municipal court shall have original jurisdiction only in those cases when the amount claimed by any party * * * does not exceed five thousand dollars * * *.' In the case at bar, the parties entered into a contract by which appellant bought certain equipment, paying $50 in cash and giving his promissory note for $1,450. Upon his failure to make payments on the note, an action was commenced by appellees, seeking a judgment for money only. This is the type of action which R.C. § 1901.18(C) and R.C. § 1901.17 encompass. For purposes of those sections, every municipal court in the state would have subject-matter jurisdiction of such an action.

This is not to say, however, that a plaintiff has complete freedom of choice in selecting his forum. Venue, which relates to the geographic division where a cause can be tried, must also be proper. Loftus v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., supra (107 Ohio St. 352), at 357, 140 N.E. 94.

Venue is a procedural matter. Although once the private domain of the General Assembly, it is now properly within the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under Section 5(B), Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio. Civ.R. 3(B), enacted pursuant to that power and providing where venue is proper within this state, reads:

'Any action may be venued, commenced and decided in any court in any county. When applied to county and municipal courts 'county' as used in this rule shall be construed where appropriate, as the territorial limits of those courts. Proper venue lies in any one or more of the following counties:

'* * *

'(3) A county in which the defendant conducted activity which gave rise to the claim for relief;

'* * *

'(6) The county in which all or a part of the claim for relief arose * * *.'

In the case at bar, the promissory note, for nonpayment of which this claim for relief arose, was made by appellant at the residence of the appellees in Oregon and was made payable there also. Thus, Oregon was where the defendant conducted activity which 'gave rise' to the claim and where all or part of the claim 'arose.' See Gastaldo v. Parker Appliance Co. (1962), 173 Ohio St. 181, 183, 180 N.E.2d 589.

Accordingly, under either Civ.R. 3(B)(3) or 3(B)(6), the Oregon Municipal Court was a proper forum for purposes of venue, and is vested with subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. § 1901.18(C).

Nevertheless, appellant contends that the 11 subsections of Civ.R. 3(B) do not provide alternative forums, but rather establish a sequential priority among forums beginning with 3(B)(1) (the county in which the defendant resides). Thus, he urges that the action could be venued under 3...

To continue reading

Request your trial
329 cases
  • In re K.K.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 3 Noviembre 2022
    ...For the juvenile court to have subject-matter jurisdiction, it must have jurisdiction to hear and to decide the case before it. Morrison at 87; Steel Co. at {¶ 71} The majority opinion, citing Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, points out that this court ha......
  • State ex rel. Rothal v. Smith, 20938.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 31 Diciembre 2002
    ...{¶ 110} Subject matter jurisdiction "connotes the power to hear and decide a case upon its merits[.]" Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 61 O.O.2d 335, 290 N.E.2d 841, paragraph one of the syllabus. See, also, Nielsen v. Ford Motor Co. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 495, 499, 681 N.E.2d......
  • Stancourt v. Worthington City School Dist., 04AP-870.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 27 Octubre 2005
    ...it remains." Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, at ¶ 34; see, also, Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 61 O.O.2d 335, 290 N.E.2d 841, paragraph one of the syllabus ("Subject-matter jurisdiction of a court connotes the power to hear and decide a c......
  • Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 25 Julio 2014
    ...Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 ; Morrison v. Steiner (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 86, 87, 61 O.O.2d 335, 290 N.E.2d 841, paragraph 17 N.E.3d 94 one of the syllabus. The term encompasses jurisdiction over the subject matter an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT