Law of Wills, 2016A

deceased, and others. To review a judgment of the Court of Appeals which affirmed a judgment of
the court of common pleas, defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
This is an action involving the constitutionality of section 10503-18, General Code, governing the
right to transmit and inherit property ‘when the surviving spouse or other heir at law or legatee dies
within three days after the date of death of the decedent, or within thirty days after the date of death
of such decedent if such death resulted from a common accident. * * *’
The controlling facts are these: Joseph M. Stoddard died testate on October 24, 1932, from natural
causes. His wife, Clara H., died intestate on October 27, 1932, likewise from natural causes. Each
decedent left brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. The will of Joseph M. Stoddard left all his
property, valued at $25,000, to his wife and ‘to her heirs and assigns forever,’ and named her as
executrix. The wife had assisted her husband in the accumulation and saving of his property and
estate. Inasmuch as the wife died within three days from the date of death of her husband, the heirs
at law of the husband claim his entire estate by virtue of section 10503-18, General Code. The heirs
of the wife contend, however, that they are entitled to his estate under the will; that that section of
the Code is unconstitutional; and that the claims of the heirs of Joseph M. Stoddard based thereon
are invalid.
The administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Joseph M. Stoddard filed suit in the court of
common pleas of Lucas county, alleging that he was in doubt as to the persons entitled to the estate
and that he was unable, by reason thereof, to make proper application for the determination of
inheritance tax, and praying direction and judgment of the court respecting the rights of the heirs of
each decedent in and to said estate.
The heirs of Clara H. Stoddard, all of whom were named as parties defendant in the action, filed an
answer asserting their claims substantially as mentioned above after admitting the facts alleged in the
plaintiff's petition, which covered the time of death of each decedent, the relationship of the parties
to the decedent, the execution and probate of the will.
On the trial of the case judgment was rendered in favor of the heirs of Joseph M. Stoddard,
deceased, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Lucas county. Error proceedings were
filed in this court as of right on the ground that the questions herein arise out of the Constitution of
the state of Ohio.
DAY, Judge.
Is section 10503-18, General Code, constitutional? Does it deprive the heirs of Clara H. Stoddard of
their vested or property rights without due process of law? Does it establish a presumption of the
order of death contrary to the facts? These are the major questions raised by plaintiffs in error and
we shall consider them in their order.
A careful reading of the statute will disclose that, in fact, it establishes no presumption of the order
of death. It provides that ‘no one of such persons shall be presumed to have died first’; that the
estate of such first decedent shall pass and descend as though he had survived such heir at law or
legatee. The right to indulge in a presumption of the order of death is expressly prohibited therein. It
347