
    William Piatt et al. v. David Sinton.
    "Where a party is entitled to commence a proceeding in error after the lapse of three years from the date of the judgment sought to be reversed, by virtue of the saving clauses in section 523 of the code (S. &, 0. 1106), the facts, which bring the party within the saving, must be averred in the petition in error. See Hanover v. Sperry, ante, 244.
    Error, to the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
    Motion to dismiss proceedings in error.
    The original action was brought by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error, and final judgment was rendered therein in favor of the plaintiff on the 29th day of June,, 1867.
    
      The petition in error was filed in this court on the 17th day of August, 1878.
    It is now moved by defendant in error that the proceedings in error be dismissed for the reason that the petition, in error was not filed within three years from the date of the judgment sought to be reversed.
    Section 523 of the code (S. & C. 1106), provided, “No proceeding for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within three years after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or, in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a married woman, a person of unsound mind or imprisoned, within three years, as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.”
    The plaintiffs in error resist the motion upon the ground that they, or some of them, are within the protection of the saving clauses in said section, although the facts bringing them within the saving do not appear in the record.
    
      Taylor & Hollester, for the motion.
    
      J. F. Baldwin, contra.
   By the Court.

This proceeding in error must be dismissed, unless the plaintiffs in error, within sixty days, show, by proper averment, in their petition in error, the facts upon which they rely to prevent the bar of the statute.

See Hanover v. Sperry, ante, 244.  