It is contended that the petition shows on its face that there is a misjoinder of parties defendant for the reason that a joint liability against them is not pleaded, and that the motion to quash was therefore properly sustained. It must be conceded that if the рetition does not contain allegations showing such joint liability, service upon the defendant, The Canton Provision Company, was рroperly quashed.
Gorey
v.
Black,
It has been held that a retailer of unwholesome meat is liable in tort to the user for damages proximately resulting from the sale in accordance with the provisions of Section 12760, General Code.
Portage Markets Co.
v.
George,
We may then assume for the purpose of inquiry that the petition contains a sufficient charge of actionable negligence against each defendant; neverthеless the wrongdoing was not joint in character, for the reason that under the facts pleaded the liability of the defendant, The Canton Provision Company, was primary and that of the defendant, Albert J. Kwiecinsld, secondary. A manufacturer of unwholesome food is nоt only liable for the sale to the consumer through a retailer, but also to the retail dealer, in a proper case, fоr damages for loss of business and reputation resulting from re-sale of the injurious product.
Neiman
v.
Channellene Oil & Mfg. Co.,
The facts pleaded show that the liver рudding was manufactured and sold by The Canton Provision Company in the original sealed package, but fail to allege actual knowledge of the unwholesome character of the
*47
food on the part of the defendant, Albert J. Kwieeinski, at the time of his purchase of it from the manufacturer. The specific allegation of the petition is that the defendants “knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known” thereof. If there were a recovery by plaintiff against the retailer, he, not having aсtual knowledge of the presence of the deleterious substance in the package at that time, could recovеr over against the manufacturer. The principle that two tort-feasors cannot be joined as defendants in an action fоr injuries arising out of their concurrent acts where one is primarily and the other secondarily liable to the party injured is recognized in this state. Under such circumstances the torts are related but not joint.
Morris
v.
Woodburn,
When the manufacturer wrongfully puts on the market unwholesome food in the original package by sale to the retailer, who he knows will resell it to customers, he commits an act of malfеasance which may injure both retailer and customers. The shelves of the modern grocer are considerably filled with canned and sealed package goods. Neither the dealer nor the prospective customer can know the charаcter of the contents without opening the can or breaking the package. Both are at the mercy of the careless producer and each class of buyers must be protected. But the tort of him who creates the food products is wholly diffеrent from that of the distributor because of the primary character of the one and the secondary character оf the other. The defendants were not joint tortfeasors.
Some authorities have been cited to sustain the theory that the liability on the part of each defendant
*48
arose out of the breach of an implied warranty that the food product sold was fit for food. An implied contract of warranty requires a meeting of the minds the same as does an express contract.
Columbus, H. V. & T. Ry. Co.
v.
Gaffney,
It is maintained, howevеr, that the defendant, The Canton Provision Company, entered its appearance in the action by filing the motion to quash. If by the mоtion the defendant company appeared for the sole purpose of objecting to jurisdiction of the persоn and raised that question only there would be no entry of appearance upon the merits.
Smith
v.
Hoover,
The defendant company in its motion recited that it disclaimed any intention of entering its appearance save for the purpose of the motion, and asked for an order to quash service of summons for the reason that it was a resident of Stark county and the action was •not properly brought in Summit county against it. This recital was but one way of saying that the court did not have jurisdiction over the person.
In the case of
Adams
v.
Trepanier Lumber Co.,
In the instant case the objective was the quashing of service. The determination of the validity of service in no way involved the question of jurisdiction of the subject matter. Jurisdiction in the latter sense mepnss *49 the power to hear and determine after binding service or entry of appearanсe. The motion filed in this case only raised the question whether the moving defendant had been brought into court by valid process and jurisdiсtion of the person obtained. The filing of the motion in such form did not amount to entry of appearance upon the merits, аnd as the petition showed on its face that there was- no joint liability the trial court properly sustained the motion to quash.
The Cоurt of Appeals committed prejudicial error in reversing the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be reversed and that of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.
Judgment reversed.