Appeal — Final order — Overruling motion to quash service of summons — Not final appealable order — Interlocutory order not rendered final by abuse of discretion.
Per Curiam.
We do not reach the merits of these causes because we find that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the order of the trial court. An order overruling a motion to quash is not a final appealable order. State, ex rel. Gregory, v. Masheter, 3 Ohio St.2d 43, Tonio v. Lett Co. of Indiana, Inc., 65 Ohio App. 304; Section 6, Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
The defendants argue that the order of the trial court is appealable, even if it is interlocutory, because it is the result of an abuse of discretion, but the legal basis of this argument was found to be unsound in Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 85. An abuse of discretion does not, of itself, render final and appealable an otherwise interlocutory order.
Judgments reversed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.