Case ID: ohio-cc_14/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
    Jan. Term, 1897.)
    Before Smith, Cox, and Swing JJ.
    THE TENNESSEE LUMBER CO. AND THE CINCINNATI PANEL CO. v. JAMES W. MARCY.
    
      In error proceedings all the several parties interested in the judgment below, must be made parties — Six months’ limitation—
    A proceeding in error can not be instituted by one of several parties to the suit who are alike interested in the judgment below, without making- them parties to the error proceeding, and where a petition in error has been dismissed for _failure to make the parties below interested in the judgment __ below, parties to the error proceeding, and more than six months after judgment below have elapsed, new error proceedings are^barred by the statute.1! ~
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
   Smith, J.

In this case it clearly appears that quite a number of persons who were parties to the controversy in the probate court, and in the court of' common pleas, to which it was taken by appeal, are not parties to this proceeding in error in any way. They were all directly interested and affected by the decree which was rendered in the court of common pleas, ordering the distribution of the estate of Marcy who had made an assignment of his property to Crane, for the benefit of his creditors. Marcy alone, was made a defendant to the error proceeding. There were several other persons who held mortgages on the property, executed by Marcy before the assignment, and who were parties in the proceeding in the probate court and in the common pleas. Any change or modification of the decree of the common pleas, would affect their interests. As has been said, neither they or Crane, the assignee, (whc, possibly, if he had been made a defendant, might have represented their interests), were made parties to this proceeding to réversse that decree. They were proper and necessary parties to this proceeding. The decree in the common pleas having been rendered in July, 1894, and proper parties not having been made, and it being now too late to do so, this court has no jurisdiction to reverse or modify said decree, and the case must be stricken from the docket. See Smetters v. Rainey, 14 Ohio St., 287; Jones v. March, 30 Ohio St., 20; Burke v. Taylor, 45 Ohio St., 444; Page v. McConville, 10 O. C. C., 316.

Thomas MoDougall, for Plaintiff inJError

Marsh & Ritchie, contra.