Heirs of St. Clair v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourned for decision here, from the county of Butler. It was*a bill, of review prosecuted to reverse a decree obtained against the complainants by the defendants in the court of common pleas of Butler county. The bill of review was filed in the common pleas, and certified to the Supreme Court for decision, in consequence of the incompetency of the court of common pleas to try it, two judges of that court being interested in the cause.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourned for decision here, from the county of Butler. It was*a bill, of review prosecuted to reverse a decree obtained against the complainants by the defendants in the court of common pleas of Butler county. The bill of review was filed in the common pleas, and certified to the Supreme Court for decision, in consequence of the incompetency of the court of common pleas to try it, two judges of that court being interested in the cause. The original bill was filed by James Smith, against Arthur St. Clair, in his lifetime. It charged that, in the year 1801, Smith and St. Clair…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court :
The object of filing a bill of revivor is to bring the parties to be -affected by the decree before the court. If these parties *be of full age it is indispensable that they be served with process to appear or voluntarily enter their appearance. Without one or the other no proceedings can be regularly had against them. If the *342defendants in the bill of revivor be minors, a guardian ad litem, must be appointed for them, who must accept the appointment, and who must be brought before the court, as in other cases, by his voluntary act or by process. When the defendants in a bill of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hasty v. WellerMontgomery County Probate Court · 1940
- Kurtz v. EisensteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907