Case Name: Mary Florence Glenn et al v. Frank Eicher, Administrator
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1908-02-15
Citations: 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 95
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Florence Glenn et al v. Frank Eicher, Administrator.
Judges: Smith, J.; Swing, P.- J., and Giffbn, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 11
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
RECOVERY FROM HUSBAND’S ESTATE FOR BENEFIT OF WIFE’S ESTATE.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Mary Florence Glenn et al v. Frank Eicher, Administrator.
Decided, February 15, 1908.
Husband and Wife — Recovery as between the Estates of — Subrogation —-Administrator—Limitation of Actions — Rights of Heirs — Section 6118.
Where under the doctrine of subrogation an indebtedness exists in favor of a wife against the estate of her husband, the limitation under Section 6113 of actions by creditors does not operate as a bar against recovery by her administrator of the amount so due.
John J. Gasser, for plaintiff in error.
Closs (& Luebberi, contra.
Smith, J.; Swing, P.- J., and Giffbn, J., concur.
Affirmed Eicher, Admr., v. Darby, Admr., 5 O. L. R., 102.

Opinion:
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
In addition to the stock and fixtures set off by the appraisers of the estate of Martin S. G-lenn to Bridget Glenn, there was the sum of $500. She also paid debts of Martin S. Glenn out of her own separate estate. The evidence shows that she received no part of this $500, nor was she ever reimbursed for the debts of Martin S. G-lenn's estate that she paid.
We see no reason why her administrator should not recover for the benefit of her estate the $500, which was not paid to her, and the amount paid by her to liquidate her husband's indebtedness, to which she is entitled under the doctrine of subrogation. We do not think that Section 6113, relating to limitation of actions by creditors, will bar her administrator from recovering for the benefit of her estate -what was due her from the estate of her husband. This might be said to be her separate estate; they are debts due from her husband's estate, and having her administrator receive these amounts is not taking away from the children of Martin S. Glenn any part of their father's estate, for the debts of his estate should be paid.
The other grounds of error complained of by the plaintiffs in error we do not think are tenable.
Judgment affirmed.