Cooper v. Cooper

7 Ohio 238
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1836
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 Ohio 238 (Cooper v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cooper v. Cooper, 7 Ohio 238 (Ohio 1836).

Opinion

Judge Hitchcock

stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court:

The ground upon which this application for divorce is ^founded is, that the defendant has treated the petitioner with extreme cruelty; that he has willfully absented himself from her for more than three years; that he has been guilty of adultery, and that he has married another wife. The petition also discloses the fact that the defendant, who is a resident of Indiana, has applied to the proper judicial tribunal in that state, and has, by the determination of that tribunal, been divorced from the petitioner. The prayer of the petition is for divorce and alimony.

Case submitted without argument.

The question to which the attention of the court is called in the present case, arises upon the face of the petition. Before this court can proceed to dissolve a marriage contract, there must be proof that there is such a contract subsisting. If it is shown by the petitioner by proof, that there is no such contract’, there is nothing upon which the court can act. In this case, it is stated in the petition that the defendant has been divorced from the petitioner in the State of Indiana, and it is not shown but that the [533]*533proceedings were perfectly regular and fair. By the statutes of Indiana, it seems that decrees for divorce in favor of one of the-parties operates as a complete dissolution of the contract, and from thenceforth both parties areas completely liberated from the obligation of the same as if it never had been solemnized. The effect of the divorce is the same as in our own state. And if, under our laws, upon the application of the husband, a divorce-should be decreed, it can not be held that a subsequent application by the wife would be sustained. It is apparent that the petitioner in this case is already freed from the obligations of the marriage contract, so far as human laws can release her; of course, there is-no ground upon which this court can interfere, and for this cause-the petition is dismissed.

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

Related

Rousculp v. Rousculp
244 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Ohio 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-cooper-ohio-1836.