Hepner v. Feil

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hepner v. Feil

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 790, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 961

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 7, 1927

DocketNo. 8478

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 790 (Hepner v. Feil) 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

Hepner v. Feil, 5 Ohio Law. Abs. 790, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 961 (Ohio Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

FULL TEXT

VICKERY, J.

This case comes into this court on a petition in error to the Municipal Court of the City of Cleveland.

The facts in this ease are similarly like the facts in the case of Dodge v. Keller, No. 8495. In the instant case, the judgment was rendered. in favor of Dr. Feil, in the sum of seventy-five dollars, for the care of the defendant [791]*791below, plaintiff in error’s minor son, and it is to reverse that judgment that error is prosecuted here.

In this case it appears that the father and mother were separated by a decree of divorce and the child in question was given to the control and support of the mother and the father was ordered to pay a certain amount as alimony and for the support of the minor children, which he had paid regularly. Now the child in question was a sickly child and needed-medical attention, and notwithstanding the fact that the father had been relieved, we might say, from further, support of the children other than the payment of the money ordered by the decree of the court, nevertheless he employed two physicians outside to take care of this child, and while he was thus paying the sum stipulated in the decree and while he was employing physicians outside, without his knowledge or assent, the mother employed Dr. Feil and the services were rendered this boy under the contract with the mother. The father neither requested the services nor promised to pay them thereafter, and -the question would then arise if, under those circumstances, the father could be compelled to pay, and the case of Rowland v. State, 32 Oh. Ap. 75, is authority that such payment could not be collected from the father under the circumstances as outlined in this case, and if this case were properly before this court it would have been reversed, but on an examination of the transcript and the proceedings, we find there was no bill of exceptions filed in this ease as the law requires.

Therefore, the matters which we have discussed are not before the court and the judgment notwithstanding the law upon the subject will have to be affirmed.

(Sullivan, PJ., and Levine, J., concur in judgment.)

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

FULL TEXT

VICKERY, J.

This case comes into this court on a petition in error to the Municipal Court of the City of Cleveland.

The facts in this ease are similarly like the facts in the case of Dodge v. Keller, No. 8495. In the instant case, the judgment was rendered. in favor of Dr. Feil, in the sum of seventy-five dollars, for the care of the defendant [791]*791below, plaintiff in error’s minor son, and it is to reverse that judgment that error is prosecuted here.

In this case it appears that the father and mother were separated by a decree of divorce and the child in question was given to the control and support of the mother and the father was ordered to pay a certain amount as alimony and for the support of the minor children, which he had paid regularly. Now the child in question was a sickly child and needed-medical attention, and notwithstanding the fact that the father had been relieved, we might say, from further, support of the children other than the payment of the money ordered by the decree of the court, nevertheless he employed two physicians outside to take care of this child, and while he was thus paying the sum stipulated in the decree and while he was employing physicians outside, without his knowledge or assent, the mother employed Dr. Feil and the services were rendered this boy under the contract with the mother. The father neither requested the services nor promised to pay them thereafter, and -the question would then arise if, under those circumstances, the father could be compelled to pay, and the case of Rowland v. State, 32 Oh. Ap. 75, is authority that such payment could not be collected from the father under the circumstances as outlined in this case, and if this case were properly before this court it would have been reversed, but on an examination of the transcript and the proceedings, we find there was no bill of exceptions filed in this ease as the law requires.

Therefore, the matters which we have discussed are not before the court and the judgment notwithstanding the law upon the subject will have to be affirmed.

(Sullivan, PJ., and Levine, J., concur in judgment.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Ohio Law. Abs. 790, 1927 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hepner-v-feil-ohioctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack