172 N.E.2d 475 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1960
This cause originated in the County Court of Lucas County, Ohio, of District No. 4, wherein plaintiff, appellant herein, recovered a judgment against the defendant, appellee herein, in the sum of $
The sole issues before this court are whether in such appeal from the County Court to the Common Pleas Court a new petition is required by statute to be filed in the Common Pleas Court, and whether failure to do so is a ground for dismissal of the action in favor of defendant.
Sections in Chapter 1921 of the Revised Code covering appeals from the newly established County Court to the Common Pleas Court contain, without material change, the provisions of former sections governing appeals from the justice of the peace. The pertinent sections of the Revised Code are as follows:
Section
Section
Section
Section
The said special sections in the statute are exclusive of the general Appellate Procedure Act wherein Section
The judgment in the County Court was entered on February 4, 1959, and the transcript was filed in the Common Pleas Court on February 17, 1959. Rule day for filing the petition required by Section
The judgment of dismissal by the Common Pleas Court entered on March 1, 1960, reads as follows:
"This day this cause came on for hearing on defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss this appeal and to render final judgment for defendant-appellant and for their costs, and the same was submitted to the court and the court being fully advised in the premises finds said motion well taken and hereby grants same. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff-appellee's cause against defendant-appellant be dismissed and that final judgment be entered for defendant-appellant for failure of plaintiff-appellee to file petition in accordance with Section
The decisions interpreting former sections of Chapter 1921 of the Revised Code before the establishment of the County Court are directly applicable and controlling in the instant case.
The case of Talamini v. Ulmer, 23 Cow. C. (N.S.), 49, 34 Cow. D., 92, remains positive authority in point. In construing the statutes then existing (unchanged by re-enactment but made to apply *386 to the County Court), it was held that where a defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace, and the plaintiff has failed to file his petition within the time prescribed by statute after the filing of the transcript from the justice of the peace, the Common Pleas Court may enter a judgment of dismissal. A similar conclusion was reached in the same year in Frazier v. Walker, 10 Cow. C. (N.S.), 224, 20 Cow. D., 25.
The appellant urges in the instant case that compliance with the statute was accomplished by appellee's filing of the transcript which contained the original papers in the County Court, including a petition, answer and reply. This contention was refuted in Sayre v. Stoll,
"But, it is pointed out that new pleadings are required by Section 10398, General Code [now Section
"`The rule day for filing the petition in the Court of Common Pleas in a case appealed from a justice of the peace shall be the third Saturday after the expiration of the time limited for filing the transcript; and the subsequent pleadings shall be filed within such times thereafter as is provided for the filing thereof in cases commenced in that court after the return day of the summons.'
"It seems to us that in the absence of that section the case would have been heard on the pleadings filed before the justice and that the section was enacted to avoid that result and to secure to the appellant a more formal hearing than that provided by the justice's code. The fact that the section provides that the rule days for pleadings should be computed from the filing of the transcript indicates that the issuance of a summons was not contemplated. This implication is made stronger by the fact that the section refers to summons in other cases."
See, also, Gough v. Bobby, 11 Ohio Law Abs., 451; Meek v. RayCaldwell, Inc. (CP), 30 Ohio Opinions, 368; 38 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 299, 302, Sections 366, 370.
The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is, therefore, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
FESS and DEEDS, JJ., concur. *387