Locke v. Locke

Ohio Court of Appeals

Locke v. Locke

161 N.E.2d 798, 111 Ohio App. 163, 84 Ohio Law. Abs. 193, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 54, 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 685

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 1959

Docket24853

StatusPublished

This text of 161 N.E.2d 798 (Locke v. Locke) 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

Locke v. Locke, 161 N.E.2d 798, 111 Ohio App. 163, 84 Ohio Law. Abs. 193, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 54, 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 685 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per CURIAM:

In this cause here appealed on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas, there is no bill of exceptions to show the evidence adduced and it is incumbent upon the appellant, therefore, to demonstrate error on the face of the record.

We find from the record that plaintiff-appellant, Reginald Locke, filed his petition for divorce on October 11, 1956, with affidavit for service by publication upon the defendant, Eveline Hilda Locke, 298 Heol Gwyrossydd (Flats) Penlan, Swanse, United Kingdom). Thereafter, while the case was still pending, we find that a motion made by the defendant on May 14, 1957, for temporary alimony and support of minor children, was granted; that on November 2, 1957, the plaintiff filed an amended petition, and on November 8, 1957, an answer and cross-petition, praying for affirmative relief, was filed by the defendant. On November 12, 1957, the plaintiff dismissed his petition and amended petition.

We hold that the plaintiff’s dismissal of his petition and amended petition on November 12, 1957, which was subsequent to the order of the court granting defendant temporary relief, and also subsequent to the *194 filing of defendant’s cross-petition on which service was subsequently had, seeking affirmative relief, did not divest the court of jurisdiction over the plaintiff as to orders and the affirmative action then pending, and that service of summons having been made upon the plaintiff, all orders of the Court of Common Pleas made in the proceedings are valid.

Therefore, no error being demonstrable on the face of the record, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

HURD, PJ, KOVACHY and SKEEL, JJ, concur.

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

OPINION

Per CURIAM:

In this cause here appealed on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas, there is no bill of exceptions to show the evidence adduced and it is incumbent upon the appellant, therefore, to demonstrate error on the face of the record.

We find from the record that plaintiff-appellant, Reginald Locke, filed his petition for divorce on October 11, 1956, with affidavit for service by publication upon the defendant, Eveline Hilda Locke, 298 Heol Gwyrossydd (Flats) Penlan, Swanse, United Kingdom). Thereafter, while the case was still pending, we find that a motion made by the defendant on May 14, 1957, for temporary alimony and support of minor children, was granted; that on November 2, 1957, the plaintiff filed an amended petition, and on November 8, 1957, an answer and cross-petition, praying for affirmative relief, was filed by the defendant. On November 12, 1957, the plaintiff dismissed his petition and amended petition.

We hold that the plaintiff’s dismissal of his petition and amended petition on November 12, 1957, which was subsequent to the order of the court granting defendant temporary relief, and also subsequent to the *194 filing of defendant’s cross-petition on which service was subsequently had, seeking affirmative relief, did not divest the court of jurisdiction over the plaintiff as to orders and the affirmative action then pending, and that service of summons having been made upon the plaintiff, all orders of the Court of Common Pleas made in the proceedings are valid.

Therefore, no error being demonstrable on the face of the record, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

HURD, PJ, KOVACHY and SKEEL, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E.2d 798, 111 Ohio App. 163, 84 Ohio Law. Abs. 193, 14 Ohio Op. 2d 54, 1959 Ohio App. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locke-v-locke-ohioctapp-1959.