Black v. Hill
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Logan county. A motion is made by the defendants in error to dismiss this ease, on the ground that more than a year elapsed after the death of the plaintiff in error before any steps ■were taken to revive the proceeding in error in the name of her representatives.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Logan county. A motion is made by the defendants in error to dismiss this ease, on the ground that more than a year elapsed after the death of the plaintiff in error before any steps ■were taken to revive the proceeding in error in the name of her representatives. On the 26th of September, 1876, the death of the plaintiff in error was suggested' by George Wilson and Mary Marion, her heirs-at-law, the original action being for the recovery of real property. The court having found the suggestion to be true, on motion of said George and Mary, ordered the action to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The motion is founded on section 411 of the code of civil procedure, which provides that an order to revive an action in the names of the representa*88tives of a plaintiff shall not be made without the consent ■of the defendant after the expiration of one year from the time the order might have been first made.
The chapter of the code in which this section is found relates to the revivor of actions.
In Carter v. Jennings (24 Ohio St. 182) it was held that the mode provided in this chapter for the revivor of actions was not exclusive, but that the court has power, under section 39 of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Stettauer Bros. v. Carney & StevensSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Hayden v. HuffNebraska Supreme Court · 1901
- Spaeth v. SellsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1909
- Connors v. RackleCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1912
- Feuchter v. KeylOhio Supreme Court · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.