Case v. Case

124 N.E.2d 856, 70 Ohio Law. Abs. 2
CourtHamilton County Probate Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1955
DocketNo. 3913
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 124 N.E.2d 856 (Case v. Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton County Probate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Case v. Case, 124 N.E.2d 856, 70 Ohio Law. Abs. 2 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1955).

Opinion

[6]*6OPINION

By DAVIES, J.:

In this action, the plaintiff, Mamie Case, who is the surviving spouse of Theodore Case, deceased; has prayed for a declaratory judgment to determine if the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act as amended October 17, 1940, applies to the granting of letters testamentary in Ohio and to prescribe the proper method of serving notice upon a minor who is in the military service and who is entitled to notice of the probate of decedent’s will under the provisions of §2107.13 R. C.

The decedent, Theodore Case, was survived by his widow, two adult sons, two adult daughters, and a minor son, Richard A. Case, who is twenty years of age, and who is in the military service of the United States, being presently known as Airman 2nd Class Richard A. Case, A. F. 15499476, U. S. Air Force 5039th Air Transport Squadron, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska, A. P. O. 942. The minor’s permanent residence and domicil, and the place to which he intends to return when discharged from military service, is 394 Fleming Road, Wyoming, Hamilton County, Ohio.

All of the adult heirs have been properly served with, or have waived the issuance of, notice -under the provisions of §2107.13 R. C. The Court, under these circumstances, has been asked to prescribe the proper method of serving upon said minor defendant, Richard A. Case, the notice of probate of the will of said decedent required by §2107.13 R. C., and to declare whether or not the said Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act as amended applies to this case.

The applicable part of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act as amended October 17, 1940 (which will sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the Act), reads as follows:

“Tit. 50, App. Article II — General Relief. Sec. 520. Default judgments; affidavits; bonds; attorneys for persons in service.
“(1) In any action or proceeding commenced in any court, if there shall be a default of any appearance by the defendant, the plaintiff, before entering judgment shall file in the court an affidavit setting forth facts showing that the defendant is not in military service. If unable to file such affidavit plaintiff shall in lieu thereof file an affidavit setting forth either that the defendant is in the military service or that plaintiff is not able to determine whether or not defendant is in such service. If an affidavit is not filed showing that the defendant is not in the military service, no judgment shall be entered without first securing an order [7]*7of court directing such entry, and no such order shall be made if the defendant is in such service until after the court shall have appointed an attorney to represent defendant and protect his interest, and the court shall on application make such appointment. Unless it appears that the defendant is not in such service the court may require, as a condition before judgment is entered, that the plaintiff file a bond approved by the court conditioned to indemnify the defendant, if in military service, against any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any judgment should the judgment be thereafter set aside in whole or in part. And the court may make such other and further order or enter such judgment as in its opinion may be necessary to protect the rights of the defendant under this Act * * *.
“(2) Any person who shall make or use an affidavit required under this section, knowing it to be false, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year or by fine not to exceed $1,000, or both.
“(3) In any action or proceeding in which a person in military service is a party if such party does not personally appear therein or is not represented by an authorized attorney, the court may appoint an attorney to represent him; and in such case, a like bond may be required and an order made to protect the rights of such person. But no attorney appointed under this Act (said sections) to protect a person in military service shall have power to waive any right of the person for whom he is appointed or bind him by his acts.
“(4) If any judgment shall be rendered in any action or proceeding governed by this section against any person in military service during the period of such service or within thirty days thereafter, and it appears that such person was prejudiced by reason of his. military service in making his defense thereto, such judgment may, upon application, made by such person or his legal representative, not later than ninety days after the termination of such service, be opened by the court rendering the same a.nrf such defendant or his legal representative let in to defend; provided it is made to appear that the defendant has a meritorious or legal defense to the action or some part thereof. Vacating, setting aside, or reversing any judgment because of any of the provisions of this Act (said sections) shall not impair any right or title acquired by any bona fide purchaser for value under such judgment.”

Section 510, Title 50, App. states that the purpose of the Act is as follows:

“In order to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense under the emergent conditions which are threatening the peace and security of the United States and to enable the United States the more successfully to fulfill the requirements of the national defense, provision is made to suspend enforcement of civil liabilities, in certain cases, of persons in the military service of the United States in order to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation, [8]*8and to this end * * * provisions are made for the temporary suspension of legal proceedings and transactions which may prejudice the civil rights of persons in such service during the period herein specified over which this Act (sections 501-548 and 560-590 of this Appendix) remains in force.”

An article entitled “The Present Status of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act,” by George A. Carlson, which appears in the Journal of the Oklahoma Bar Association, Vol. 25, No. 16, dated April 24, 1954, outlines the history of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act and concludes that the Act is in effect even though World War II has terminated.

An “action” is a judicial proceeding either in law or equity to obtain certain relief at the hands of a Court. Words & Phrases. An “action” is merely the judicial means of enforcing a right. It is often used synonymously with the word “proceeding.” An “action” is the form in which a cause of action is presented, and a “cause of action” is the fact or facts which establish or give rise to a right of action.

There is authority that the term “action” does not apply to an ex parte proceeding. The vital idea of an action is a proceeding on the part of one person as actor against another for the infringement of the right of the first in the manner prescribed by law. A proceeding to probate a will is an action at law. Simpson v. Simpson, 273 Ill. 90, 112 N. E. 276. A proceeding for the probate of a will, it has been held, does not constitute an “action” upon which a valid “lis pendens” might arise, the proceeding being one “in rem” wherein the “res” was the written instrument. Scarborough v. Long, Ga., 197 S. E. 796, 800.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Ex Rel. Estate of Perry v. Roper
168 S.W.3d 577 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)
Alliance Group, Inc. v. Rosenfield
685 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
Corron v. Corron
531 N.E.2d 708 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988)
Screeton v. Crumpler
617 S.W.2d 847 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1981)
Cloyd v. Cloyd
564 S.W.2d 337 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Steingrabe Estate
1 Pa. D. & C.3d 164 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 N.E.2d 856, 70 Ohio Law. Abs. 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/case-v-case-ohprobcthamilto-1955.