Hoffer v. White

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hoffer v. White

4 N.E.2d 595, 53 Ohio App. 187, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 288, 5 Ohio Op. 73, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 329

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 1935

DocketNo 181

StatusPublished

This text of 4 N.E.2d 595 (Hoffer v. White) 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

Hoffer v. White, 4 N.E.2d 595, 53 Ohio App. 187, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 288, 5 Ohio Op. 73, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

In the case of State ex Beebe v Cowley, 116 Oh St, 377, the Supreme Court of Ohio states in the opinion:

“A reputed father of a bastard child is not legally and financially responsible for its maintenance unless there is a statute imposing such a duty upon him.”.

This pronouncement disposes of any right to maintain such an action under the common law.

We know of no statute and none has been cited giving a right to a creditor to maintain a civil action against the reputed father for necessaries furnished the bastard child. Prior to the amendment to §13133, GC, the father of a bastard child stood charged with its 'maintenance, but the amendment passed in 1934, and as it now stands that provision has been eliminated. As the statute now stands, relief is furnished only to the mother of the bastard child for her support, maintenance, and necessary expenses.

The criminal statute for non-support is not before us.

The trial court did not commit error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.

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

OPINION

By HAMILTON, J.

In the case of State ex Beebe v Cowley, 116 Oh St, 377, the Supreme Court of Ohio states in the opinion:

“A reputed father of a bastard child is not legally and financially responsible for its maintenance unless there is a statute imposing such a duty upon him.”.

This pronouncement disposes of any right to maintain such an action under the common law.

We know of no statute and none has been cited giving a right to a creditor to maintain a civil action against the reputed father for necessaries furnished the bastard child. Prior to the amendment to §13133, GC, the father of a bastard child stood charged with its 'maintenance, but the amendment passed in 1934, and as it now stands that provision has been eliminated. As the statute now stands, relief is furnished only to the mother of the bastard child for her support, maintenance, and necessary expenses.

The criminal statute for non-support is not before us.

The trial court did not commit error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

ROSS, PJ, and MATTHEWS, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.E.2d 595, 53 Ohio App. 187, 20 Ohio Law. Abs. 288, 5 Ohio Op. 73, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffer-v-white-ohioctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack