Mattox v. Mattox

2 Ohio 233
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 2 Ohio 233 (Mattox v. Mattox) 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
Mattox v. Mattox, 2 Ohio 233 (Ohio 1826).

Opinion

By the Court :

The bill must be dismissed. It would, be a libel on the legislature to suppose that the statute was designed for the convenience of that class of characters to which these parties seem to belong. It was intended for the relief of injured innocence; not to encourage persons of loose morals, or rather of no morals at all, to live in the open, scandalous violation of the common rules of decency.

This application is to the equitable jurisdiction of the court, and must be decided by the principles which prevail in courts of equity. The complainant must come *with clean hands and a chaste character, not stained with the same infamy and crime of which she complains. These parties are in pari delicto, and to grant relief to either of them would be offering a bounty to guilt. It would place the permanency of the marriage contract, in every case, at the disposal of the contracting parties, and remove one of the strongest motives to that correctness and chastity of conduct which is necessary to render the marriage state either pleasant or convenient.

The ground on which this bill is dismissed is not new in the practice of this court. Many have been dismissed for a similar reason, and we had reason to believe that the practice was sufficiently known to prevent applications liable to this objection.

Bill dismissed.

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

Related

Mahle v. Mahle
500 N.E.2d 907 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)
O'Connor v. O'Connor
253 N.E.2d 250 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1969)
Benedict v. Benedict
45 Ohio Law. Abs. 243 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1946)
Jones v. Jones
176 S.W.2d 784 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Smith v. Smith
203 S.W. 884 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Eikenbury v. Eikenbury
70 N.E. 837 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1904)
Fitch v. Pinckard
5 Scam. 69 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1842)
Games v. Stiles Ex Dem. Dunn
39 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 1840)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Ohio 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattox-v-mattox-ohio-1826.