“As to the misjoinder of parties plaintiff.

This case was tried in the Municipal Court of Akron, which court has such jurisdiction as is provided by law. The jurisdiction of that court is fixed by GC. Sec. 1579-506. Subdivision 1 of this section gives it the broad general jurisdiction “In all actions and proceedings of which justices of the peace have or may he given jurisdiction.” This subdivision is followed by ten other subdivisions by which it is given special jurisdiction in certain matters, wherein the amount involved does not exceed $1000. Subdivision eleven of this section reads as follows:

“11. Within the jurisdiction of the court, authority to determine any controversy between parties before it, when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their rights. When such determination cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court may order them to be brought in or may dismiss the action without prejudice.”

It is apparent from the provisions of this section that it was the intention of the legislature that the Municipal Court of Akron should be a court where justice could be meted out sneedily between litigants, without requiring them to conform to certain technical rules of procedure. Under this subdivision 11 the court has jurisdiction “to determine any controversy between the parties before it, when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their rights.”

In the instant case the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties to the action. It clearly appears from the record that if the Hotel Co. is liable at all, it would be liable to each plaintiff at least in separate actions, and that the evidence would be the same in each action except as to the particular article and its value, belonging to each plaintiff, and that the evidence as to each one could not affect the rights of the other.

It is therefore clear that the Municipal Court had special jurisdiction under this section of the Code to proceed to determine the case without prejudice to the rights of anyone, and that it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict on the ground that none of the property stolen was owned jointly by plaintiffs.

As to the questions of the value of the articles alleged to have been stolen, and whether or not the relation of innkeeper and guest existed within the meaning of the law.

The latest pronouncement of our Supreme Court upon whether or not the evidence in a pártiuclar case is such as to bring a determination upon it within the province of the jury, is in case No. 20423, Painesville Utopia Theatre Co. v. Lautermilch, decided Feb. 29, 1928, the syllabus of which is reported in the Ohio Law Bulletin & Reporter of March 5, 1928.

Under this holding we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom were such that there was some evidence upon each of these questions and upon every other material issue necessary to be proven to entitle the plaintiffs to recover, and that it was reversible error in not submitting the case to the jury under proper instructions, including instructions that if they should find for plaintiffs, that they should find the amount due each, but that if they found for defendant then it would not be necessary for them to find any amount due either plaintiff.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.”