McEntire v. McEntire

140 N.E. 328, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 405, 107 Ohio St. 510, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 259
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 8, 1923·No. No. 17675·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

'ay, J.:

1. In an action in the nature of a creditor’s bill, to nforee collection of a judgment for alimony ob-rined by the wife against the husband, a court of quity has power before enforcing such judgment to lake a conditional decree requiring the wife to make estitution of property obtained in lieu of alimony reretofore agreed upon with her husband, or, if res-tution be not made, enjoin the collection of the adgment for alimony upon the cross-petition of the usband, it being inequitable to permit the wife to nforee the judgment for alimony and at the same ¡me retain the property obtained by the agreement, 'he maxim, “He who seeks equity must do equity,” i applicable. (DeWitt v. DeWitt, 67 Ohio St., 340, istinguished.)

2. When husband and wife, who have been living eparate and apart for some months, enter into an ral agreement of separation and adjustment of roperty interests relative to alimony, support, etc., fliich was to be later reduced to writing and signed, nd the husband performs his part of such agree-lent by conveying to the wife property agreed upon, ven though she refuses to sign the agreement after eing reduced to writing, and the parties continue to ve‘ separate and apart and all martial relations icident to coverture are abandoned, under such eir-umstances communications between the husband nd wife not in the known presence of a third per-ón competent to be a witness concerning such agree-íent for alimony and separation and releasing of ights, claims and duties arising out of their marital elations, are within the spirit of Section 11988, Gen-ral Code, providing that husband and wife are com-etent witnesses in divorce and alimonv cases: and uch communications are not privileged within the terms of paragraph 3, Section 11494, General .Code, making communications between husband and wife during coverture inadmissible.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur.

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

McEntire v. McEntire, 140 N.E. 328, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 405, 107 Ohio St. 510, 1923 Ohio LEXIS 259 (Ohio 1923).

140 N.E. 328 (McEntire v. McEntire) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk
708 N.W.2d 821 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2006)
Miller v. Miller
635 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1993)
State v. Bradley
507 N.E.2d 396 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1986)
Coleman v. State
380 A.2d 49 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Coleman v. State
370 A.2d 174 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1977)
Hawgood v. Hawgood
294 N.E.2d 681 (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1973)
Bender v. Vaughan
153 N.E.2d 778 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1958)
Seeds v. Seeds
156 N.E. 193 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1927)