Case Name: Duhme, Admr., et al. v. Mehner, Admx., et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1901-12-10
Citations: 65 Ohio St. 593
Docket Number: No. 6624
Parties: Duhme, Admr., et al. v. Mehner, Admx., et al.
Judges: Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dávis, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 65
Pages: 593–593

Head Matter:
No. 6624.
Duhme, Admr., et al. v. Mehner, Admx., et al.
(Decided December 10, 1901.)
Error to tlie Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
John J. Glidden and John C. Healy, for plaintiffs in error.
Follett, Kelley & Follett; Stephens & Lincoln and Ghris. Yon Seggern, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed on the ground that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations, the' evidence showing that all the parties, including the minor son, knew of the alleged fraud in the settlement for more than four years before the suit was brought, and for more than four years after the minor son became of age; and furthermore the equities seem to be with the defendants.
Minshall, C. J., Burket and Dávis, JJ., concur.