Case Name: GARLAND et v. SPEIDEL
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1926-11-17
Citations: 5 Ohio Law Abs. 42
Docket Number: No. 20175
Parties: GARLAND et v. SPEIDEL
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 5
Pages: 42–42

Head Matter:
GARLAND et v. SPEIDEL
No. 20175.
Supreme Court
Dock. Nov. 17, 1926,
4 Abs. 790.
Attorneys — K. L. Coburne, Salem; F. E. Hunter, Alliance, for Garland; Hart and Koeh-ler, Aliance, for Speidel.

Opinion:
R. L. Garland contends in the Supreme Court
L The statute of limitations begins to run against a cause of action for criminal conversation when the unlawful acts were committed, and out from the time he (Garland) became aware of same.
2. Where an action is brought within the statute and same is dismissed without prejudice after time limit has run, a new action for same cause is barred thereafter.