Case Name: Isaac Meese and Eleanor, his wife, v. Daniel Keefe and others
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1841-12
Citations: 10 Ohio 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Isaac Meese and Eleanor, his wife, v. Daniel Keefe and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 10
Pages: 362, 363–364

Head Matter:
*Isaac Meese and Eleanor, his wife, v. Daniel Keefe and others.
A will made in another state, valid in the place where made, but not in the forms required by the laws of Ohio, passes no property in Ohio, under the act of 1831. Aliter, it seems under the acts of 1805 and 1840.
Where a will is set aside at the instance of one heir who is within the saving clause of the statute of limitations, it is wholly annulled, and the entire estate is distributed.
This is a bill in chancery from the county of Hamilton.
It is brought by Eleanor Meese, one of the heirs of Thomas Dugan (together with her husband), to contest the validity of his will. Thomas Dugan, the testator, lived in Philadelphia, and died in 1833, leaving a testamentary bequest of all his property, which was duly proved, approved, and recorded in Pennsylvania, and in August, 1838, was duly admitted to record in this state, by the common pleas of Hamilton county, as a duly executed foreign will.
The common pleas, at the instance of the plaintiff in this suit, having found by the verdict of a jury the paper to be not the will of the decedent, annulled it by decree. The defendants have brought the suit to this court by appeal.
Fox, for the complainant,
relied upon Bailey v. Bailey, 8 Ohio, 239.
Woodruff, for the defendant,
cited Swazey’s Heirs v. Blackman, 8 Ohio, 5.

Opinion:
Lane, C. J.
It is admitted that all the heirs were of age, more than two years before the filing this bill, except the plaintiff; that the decedent was a citizen of Pennsylvania, and that his will takes effect as a good devise under Pennsylvania laws.
Two questions are presented:
1. Whether the will, valid in Pennsylvania, is valid here, there being no subscribing witness.
*2. Whether the right of the plaintiff being saved from [363 the statute of limitations, if the will be set aside, it shall be wholly annulled, or only as to the plaintiff's proportionate share.
The statute of 1831, under which this will was admitted for record, and under which this suit was instituted, provides that authenticated copies of wills of other states may be admitted for record here, "and shall be good and valid in law, in like manner as wills made in this state." In a case, maturely considered and finally decided, 8 Ohio, 239, the effect of this clause was held to be merely a provision to dispense with the further proof of authentication; but that the will itself, although operative under the laws of the place where made, affected no property in Ohio, except it was eouformable to the provisions of our own statutes. A different consequence followed the statute of 1805, which rendered valid such foreign wills, executed after the laws of the place where made. So the present statute of 1840 gives the same validity to any such wills as are executed in any state or territory of the United States; but, under the act of 1831, this paper was improperly admitted for record.
An attempt is made to give effect to this paper under the present statute, which repeals all prior laws, provided such repeal " shall not affect any act done, or any right or estate accrued, or any suit or proceeding commenced; but the proceedings in every such case shall be conformed to the provisions of this act." Whatever be the interpretation of these provisions, to us it seems plain they do not divest the plaintiff of the inheritance which, long before, had descended upon her.
The next question is, if the exemption of the plaintiff from the statute of limitations avails for all the heirs, so aB to set aside the whole will. Where common interests can be severed, the protection of the statute extends no further than to him within its provisions. 10 Ohio, 11, 135. But where no such severance can be made, and the protection of the statute can not be secured without covering other interests, the benefit of the statute claimed by one 364=] avails all. It is *so in a writ of error, which is an entire thing. 3 Ohio, 49. And such a consequence attends this suit, for when, on contest, this paper is judicially found not to be the will of Dugan, the order of probate is annulled, and the act thus avoided transmits no estate. Decree for the complainants.