Case Name: TIGNER v. TIGNER
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-26
Citations: 2 Ohio Law Abs. 571
Docket Number: No. 2379
Parties: TIGNER v. TIGNER
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 2
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
No. 584
TIGNER v. TIGNER
Ohio Appeals, Hamilton County
No. 2379.
Nov. 26, 1923.
413. DIVORCE — Age of majority act which took effect July 18, 1923, had no effect upon a then pending action brought by a wife who was above 18 years when it was begun, but under 21 when it was called for trial.
Attorneys — C. S. Sparks, Cincinnati, for Prances Tigner; for Thomas, not given.

Opinion:
HAMILTON, J.
Epitomized Opinion
Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract
Prances Tigner brought action for divorce from Thomas Tigner, July 11, 1923. She was 18 years of age, March 7, 1923. At said time of filing her petition she was of legal age under the existing statute and could maintain her action, but on April 5; 1923, it was amended, making 21 years the age of majority, thus raising that of females from that of 18 years to 21 years. The act to amend took effect July 18, 1923, seven days subsequent to the filing of her suit.
In October, 1923, the case was called for trial, whereupon the action was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was, at the time of calling the case for trial, under 21 years of age, and then being a minor> had no right to prosecute the action. Error was taken by her from the judgment of dismissal, to the Court of Appeals, which held:
Sec. 26 GC. provides that whenever a - statute is repealed or amended, it shall in no manner affect pending actions. It follows that the new statute relating to the majority age had no application to this then pending suit, and the trial court erred in dismissing the case. Judgment reversed and cause remanded to be reinstated.