Case Name: Hester West, Adm'x of John West, v. Samuel Pickesimer, otherwise called Samuel B. Hymer
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1836-12
Citations: 7 Ohio 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Hester West, Adm’x of John West, v. Samuel Pickesimer, otherwise called Samuel B. Hymer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 7
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
*Hester West, Adm’x of John West, v. Samuel Pickesimer, otherwise called Samuel B. Hymer.
In fixing the operation of the statute of limitations, the term “ beyond sea,” means out of the state.
Reserved in the county of Clermont.
This is an action of debt commenced on August 6, 1833, and in the declaration it is alleged that the indebtedness accrued on April 10, 1820.
The defendant pleaded two pleas:
1. The general issue.
2. That the cause of action did not accrue at any time within six years before the commencement of the suit.
Issue is joined upon the first plea, and to the second the plaintiff replied that the cause of action accrued before June 1, 1824, and at the time of the accruing thereof, the said John West was not a. resident of the State of Ohio, but of the State of Yirginia. That the said Hester West took letters of administration in the State-of Yirginia; and that neither the said John West during his life, nor the said Hester West since his death, were at any time withiit the State of Ohio previous to the commencement of this suit.
To this replication the defendant demurs generally.
Strait, for plaintiff.
Fishback, for defendant.

Opinion:
Hitchcock, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The question submitted is, whether the plaintiff's replication is-a sufficient answer to the defendant's special plea in bar. By the-replication, the fact relied upon to avoid the statute of limitations is, that neither the plaintiff nor her intestate were ever within* •this state prior to the commencement of this suit, and it is insisted that she is within the exception of that statute. According to the decision of the court at the present term, in the case of Hazlet et al. v. Critchfield, the limitation act of 1810 must govern this case. By that act there is an exception in favor of those persons who are "within the age of'twenty-one years, insane, femes covert, imprisoned, or beyond sea," at the time the cause of action accrues, and they are allowed to sue at any time within the respective period specified after the disability is remov'ed. Chase's Stat. 655.
It has been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the expressions "beyond sea," "out of the Estate," are analogous. 3 Cranch, 174; 7 Cranch, 525; 3 Wheat. 541; 11 Wheat. 361. In conformity with these authorities, we have uniformly so held upon the circuit, when called upon to give a construction to our acts of limitation.
The plaintiff, by her replication, shows herself within the exception or saving clause of the statute, and is entitled to judgment on the demurrer.