Case ID: ohio-law-abs_3/html/0059-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAMILTON, Jv", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 109
    PERRINE v. PERRINE
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Warren Co.
    No. 102.
    Decided May 22, 1924
    294. CONTEST OF WILLS—Action to contest will, begun within one year, is not vitiated by entrance of interested parties after expiration of that time.
    Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
    Attorneys—Ed. H. Williams, for Benj.. Per-rine; George E. Young, Dean O. Stanley, Frank Brandon, Carlton F. Brown, for George Per-rine; all of Lebanon.
   HAMILTON, Jv

Epitomized Opinion

John Perrine made a will which was contested by a brother, Benj. Perrine, in the Warren Probate Court. On motion by George Per-rine to dismiss the action the Probate Court complied thereto. The theory being that although the action was instituted within the time allowed by the Statute of Limitations, the coming in of brothers and sisters of the half blood as interested parties after the year had elapsed, tended to' bring it within the Statute.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. This was error.

2. “Where proceeding for contest of will is commenced within the statutory period of limitation, although only part of the persons interested in the contest are made parties thereto, the right of action is saved as to all who are ultimately made parties, notwithstanding, some of them are not brought into the case until after the period of limitation has expired. Brandford v. Andrews et al, 20 OS. 208. Judgment in dismissing action reversed.