
    EFFECT OF APPEARANCE OF CO-DEFENDANTS.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    Louisa C. Wilson v. Louisa C. Wilson, Executrix, et al.
    Decided, October 15, 1910.
    
      Appearance — Of Go-Defendants in an Error Proceeding — Lack of Unity of Interest Shown, When.
    
    Appearance under a petition in error is not effected by the voluntary appearance of co-defendants, where a lack of unity of interest is shown by the hostility of the co-defendants in requiring the defendant not served to defend against them as well as against the plaintiff in error.
    
      Stanley Matthews and E. H. Matthews, for motion.
    
      1. L. Huddle, contra.
    Giffen, J.; Smith, J., and Swing, J., concur.
   The exceptions filed by Charlotte M. Bonnell in the probate court to the account of Louisa C. Wilson, executrix, were by that court overruled and upon appeal to the court of common pleas were in part sustained and in part overruled. To that part of the judgment sustaining the exception to the payment of $1,-649.11 to Louisa C. Wilson, error is prosecuted by her.

Charlotte M. Bonnell filed a motion in this court to strike the petition in error from the files upon the ground that no summons has been issued for her and no appearance entered, although more than four months have elapsed since the judgment was rendered.

It is claimed that her appearance was effected by the voluntary appearance of her co-defendants, Robert K. Wilson and Julia Irwin, because united in interest with her.

Under the will of their father they were in law originally united as legatees; but this did not prevent them from.afterwards severing their joint interest by one .or more of them conveying their respective interests to their mother, the executrix.

There is nothing in the record directly showing any such disposition of the interest of Robert K. Wilson and Julia R. Irwin, but their hostility toward their co-defendant, Charlotte M. Bonnell, is distinctly shown where they appear in the case while pending in the c.ourt of common pleas for the sole purpose of excepting, and do except to the decision of the court in favor of Charlotte M. Bonnell and against the executrix. In the absence of any pleading showing the relation of the parties to the subject-matter of the suit this hostile act shows not only a .want of unity in interest, but that Charlotte M. Bonnell will be required to defend the judgment of the common pleas court against her co-defendants as well as the plaintiff in error. They can not therefore be united in interest within the meaning of Section 4987, Revised Statutes, whereby the appearance of one effects the appearance of all. The motion to strike the petition in error from the files wall be sustained in so far as it affects the defendant in error, Charlotte M. Bonnell.  