Baldridge v. Toombs

Decision Date27 December 1962
Citation25 O.O.2d 70,118 Ohio App. 229,189 N.E.2d 635
Parties, 25 O.O.2d 70 William BALDRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miller F. TOOMBS, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Gladys E. Davis, New Boston, and John Alden Skaker, Portsmouth, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ernest G. Littleton, Portsmouth, for defendant-appellee.

RADCLIFF, Presiding Judge.

The question herein is relatively simple, does concealment, either by active or passive means, by the alleged defendant in an action for criminal conversation, amount to fraud so as to bring into play the tolling of the statute of limitations contemplated in the last sentence of Section 2305.09, R.C.,

'Nor, if it is for fraud, until the fraud is discovered.'

We think it does not. A long line of cases beginning with Fee v. Fee, 10 Ohio 470 hold:

'A fraudulent concealment by which the plaintiff has been delayed will not enlarge upon the time for bringing an action under the statute of limitations.'

The statutory language above has no application unless fraud is the gist of the action. Fraud is not the gist of an action for loss of consortium and medical expenses predicated upon criminal conversation. Therefore, the running of the statute of limitations in the instant case is not tolled.

We apologize for the syllogism in the last paragraph as we are aware of the fraility attributed to syllogistic reasoning. In this case, however, this form of deductive reasoning is valid and the conclusion may be defended with enthusiasm and viewed with pride.

The trial judge wrote an excellent opinion in ruling upon the question in the trial court. We adopt his conclusion and authorities therefor. We do add these additional authorities; Fee v. Fee, supra; Jackson v. Jackson, 149 Ind. 238, 47 N.E. 963; Klema v. St. Elizabeth's Hospital, 170 Ohio St. 519, 166 N.E.2d 765; Corpman v. Boyer, 171 Ohio St. 233, particularly pps. 237 to 241, 169 N.E.2d 14, pps. 16 to 19; In Re Natherson's Estate, 102 Ohio App. 475, especially at p. 481, 134 N.E.2d 852, at p. 856, 57 A.L.R.2d 1297 and Conway v. Ogier, 115 Ohio App. 253, 184 N.E.2d 681 (XXXV Ohio Bar No. 34, Aug. 20, 1962).

It follows that the judgment of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition and refusing to permit the filing of an amended petition must be, and hereby is, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

COLLIER and BROWN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Shover v. Cordis Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 31 Julio 1991
    ...also been held that fraud may toll a statute of limitations only where fraud is the gist of the action. Baldridge v. Toombs (1962), 118 Ohio App. 229, 25 O.O.2d 70, 189 N.E.2d 635. In the case sub judice, appellant brought a wrongful death claim against appellee. A wrongful death claim does......
  • Dean Spriestersbach v. Ohio Edison Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 1 Noviembre 1995
    ...use." In order for the four-year fraud provision, R.C. 2305.09(C), to apply, fraud must be the gist of the action. Baldridge v. Toombs (1962), 118 Ohio App. 229, 230, cited in Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), 61 St.3d 213, 216. Denial of responsibility for the damages does not enlarge the tim......
  • Carole L. Fischer v. Emily Rettger, 83-LW-0273
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 6 Octubre 1983
    ...must be brought with four years after the cause of action accrues. A fraud action accrues when the fraud is discovered. Baldridge v. Toombs (1962), 118 Ohio App. 229; Seeds v. Seeds (1927), 116 Ohio St. 144. asser that she did not discover the fraud until after her stepfather's death in 197......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT