Pennington v. Fourth Nat'l Bank

11 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 620 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1911)

 

RULE:

An action for divorce and alimony, where there is property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, is both an action in personam and in rem, and is quite different from a real action, which involves real estate only.

FACTS:

Plaintiff customer filed an action against the defendant bank to recover funds that he claimed to have on deposit; he drew a check against the deposit, but the bank refused payment on it. The bank answered that it froze the customer's accounts as a result of a court order issued in a divorce proceeding that was initiated by the customer's wife. The bank then averred that it paid out the remaining funds in the account to the wife and her attorney pursuant to further court orders regarding alimony, attorney's fees, and child support. The bank thereafter filed a demurrer, which the court sustained. 

ISSUE:

Was publication sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over plaintiff?

ANSWER:

Yes.

CONCLUSION:

In sustaining the demurrer, the court held that even though the customer, a nonresident of Ohio, did not receive personal service in the divorce proceeding against him, service by publication was sufficient to give that court jurisdiction over him because his bank account was within the jurisdiction of that court.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.