Heim v. Heim

Ohio Court of Appeals

Heim v. Heim

172 N.E. 451, 35 Ohio App. 408, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 166, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 577

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 1930

DocketNo 2249

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 172 N.E. 451 (Heim v. Heim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heim v. Heim, 172 N.E. 451, 35 Ohio App. 408, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 166, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 577 (Ohio Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

The case seems to have been tried on the theory that she was responsible for her acts until the time she was committed to the asylum and not that she was relieved from responsibility from the time she became insane. This court can not assent to that view. The extreme cruelty, which is a ground for divorce, means voluntary or intentional extreme cruelty and can not be committed by a lunatic who does not understand the nature of her acts. Divorce may,' it is true, be granted as against an insane person, but only for acts committed while sane. Insanity is not a ground for divorce. The ten" causes for which divorce may be granted under the Ohio statute are as explicit as the Ten Commandments and can be changed by the legislature only.

The great weight of the evidence shows that the acts committed by her, of which complaint is made, were committed while she was insane and did not understand what she was doing, and they do not, therefore, constitute a cause for which divorce may be granted.

The judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.

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

RICHARDS, J.

The case seems to have been tried on the theory that she was responsible for her acts until the time she was committed to the asylum and not that she was relieved from responsibility from the time she became insane. This court can not assent to that view. The extreme cruelty, which is a ground for divorce, means voluntary or intentional extreme cruelty and can not be committed by a lunatic who does not understand the nature of her acts. Divorce may,' it is true, be granted as against an insane person, but only for acts committed while sane. Insanity is not a ground for divorce. The ten" causes for which divorce may be granted under the Ohio statute are as explicit as the Ten Commandments and can be changed by the legislature only.

The great weight of the evidence shows that the acts committed by her, of which complaint is made, were committed while she was insane and did not understand what she was doing, and they do not, therefore, constitute a cause for which divorce may be granted.

The judgment is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.E. 451, 35 Ohio App. 408, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 166, 1930 Ohio App. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heim-v-heim-ohioctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack