This is аn appeal on questions of law directed to the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Athens County, sustaining the motion of the defendant, apрellee here *333 in, to strike the petition of plaintiff, appellant herein, from the files for the reason no verification was attached thereto. At the same time the lower court overruled plaintiff’s mоtion for permission to supply such verification.
The petition was filed with the clerk on July 5,1957, seeking damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision which occurred July 29, 1955. On August 2, 1957, the defendant filed his motion for an order to strike the petition from the files because it had not bеen verified as required by Section 2309.46, Revised Code. On September 4, 1957, plаintiff filed a motion requesting permission to verify her petition. On Septembеr 9, 1957, the plaintiff’s motion was overruled and the defendant’s motion was sustainеd. The plaintiff has perfected her appeal and claims thаt the lower court committed error in said rulings on the respective motions. Section 2309.46, Revised Code, provides:
“Every pleading and motion must bе subscribed by the party or his attorney, and every pleading of fact * * * must bе verified by the affidavit of the party, his agent, or attorney. # * # 5 J
The question рresented is whether, under these circumstances. the verification may be supplied by amendment. It will be observed that this is an action for bodily injuriеs alleged to have been sustained July 29, 1955; that, under the provisions of Seсtion 2305.10, Revised Code, such action must be brought within two years after the cause of action arose; and that such period of time had expired on September 4, 1957, when the plaintiff first requested permission to verify hеr petition.
Apparently this question has been decided in only two Ohio cases, in which there was no attempt to verify the petition, and in both cases it was held that the omission may not be supplied by amendment. In Boyles v. Hoyt, 2 W. L. M., 548, 2 Deс. Rep., 376, Athens County District Court, 1860, the syllabus reads in part: .
“When a petition is filed without having been verified, the omission cannot be supplied by an amendmеnt; it must be stricken from the files, and the case is then out of court.”
A similar conclusion was reached in
Stevens
v.
White
(1859), 1 W. L. M., 394, 2 Dec. Rep., 107. However, in
Meade
*334
v.
Thorne
(Pickawаy County Common Pleas Court, 1859), 2 W. L. M., 312, 2 Dec. Rep., 289, and in
Hoytville
v.
Hoytville Banking Co.
(1934),
In the Boyles case, supra (2 W. L. M., 548), Whitman, J., says:
“Wherе the original petition in a case is not sworn to, the clerk has no right to issue a summons thereon; it is a nullity; it is no petition, and hence should be stricken from the files; and if stricken from the files, the whole case is gone with it, and a new petition must be filed, and a new summons be issued and served. ’ ’
We concur in this conclusion. In the instant ease there was no attempt to comply with the statute requiring a verification of the petition. A different situatiоn exists where there is a defective verification. In that event there is something to amend; the requirement has been met although it has been dоne irregularly. Where the verification is lacking there is nothing to amend. Tо permit the plaintiff to supply the affidavit after the expiration of the period of time within which such action must be brought would be to extend the time to bring such action beyond the period fixed by statute. No such power is vested in the courts.
We find no error prejudicial to the lights of the appellant and, therefore, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court must be, and hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.