Ward v. Ward

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ward v. Ward

103 N.E.2d 582, 90 Ohio App. 108, 46 Ohio Op. 451, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 571

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 26, 1950

Docket4498

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 N.E.2d 582 (Ward v. Ward) 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

Ward v. Ward, 103 N.E.2d 582, 90 Ohio App. 108, 46 Ohio Op. 451, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 571 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

*109 Carpenter, J.

This is an action for divorce and alimony. From the record it appears that on April 30, 1947, after a hearing on the merits, a divorce, alimony, and the right to occupy the premises of the defendant were granted the plaintiff, and, among other things, defendant was “enjoined from selling, mortgaging or in any way encumbering or alienating any right, title or interest which he may have in said premises.” Marion W. Bacome is the attorney for the defendant in this action.

On July 29, 1947, plaintiff, by her attorney, tiled a motion herein in which she alleged that Bacome, in another action entitled Marion W. Bacome v. Henry A. Ward had taken a judgment against this defendant for $170 on a cognovit note and had levied an execution on the property occupied as a home by this plaintiff and was proceeding to foreclose the lien of that judgment, and the motion asked that Marion W. Bacome be enjoined from further proceeding in that action and that his judgment lien on that property be vacated. On May 13, 1950, a journal entry was filed herein which recites that on September 17, 1947, this cause came on to be heard upon plaintiff’s motion which the court granted and allowed the injunction prayed for.

On September 17, 1947, Marion W. Bacome, under authority of Section 11421-2, G-eneral Code, moved the court for separate conclusions of fact and law. In the same journal entry of May 13, 1950, that motion was overruled by the court “on the grounds that no question of fact was determined by the court. ’ ’ From the court’s order of May 13,1950, Marion W. Bacome filed this appeal on questions of law.

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss this appeal for the reason that Marion W. Bacome is not a party to this action.

True, he is not a party, but this plaintiff, by her mo *110 tion and by taking an order thereon, is estopped from saying he is not a party. If she wanted to enjoin him, as she did, she should have made him a party. Her procedure is as irregular as his and was the beginning of this comedy of errors. She has produced a situation of which she can not now be heard to complain, and her motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

The injunction could not have issued without the determination of a question of fact upon which the relief was granted. The motion itself was based upon allegations of facts which were not positively verified by affidavit or otherwise. Upon such motion the court could not take judicial notice of the action of Marion W. Bacome v. Henry A. Ward and what had been done therein (Burke, Exrx., v. McKee, 30 Ohio App., 236, 164 N. E., 776) even though the trial judge may have presided in the other case. Myers v. State, 46 Ohio St., 473, 22 N. E., 43, 15 Am. St. Rep., 638. If the injunction was issued without evidence, that was error. If the injunction was issued upon the taking of testimony, an agreed statement of facts, or admissions of counsel, a fact question was determined, and, under Section 11421-2, G-eneral Code, the request for conclusions of fact found separately from conclusions of law was timely made and the failure of the court to so state them was error. Bittmann v. Bittmann, 129 Ohio St., 123, 194 N. E., 8.

The order granting the injunction is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.

Conn and Fess, JJ., concur.

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

*109 Carpenter, J.

This is an action for divorce and alimony. From the record it appears that on April 30, 1947, after a hearing on the merits, a divorce, alimony, and the right to occupy the premises of the defendant were granted the plaintiff, and, among other things, defendant was “enjoined from selling, mortgaging or in any way encumbering or alienating any right, title or interest which he may have in said premises.” Marion W. Bacome is the attorney for the defendant in this action.

On July 29, 1947, plaintiff, by her attorney, tiled a motion herein in which she alleged that Bacome, in another action entitled Marion W. Bacome v. Henry A. Ward had taken a judgment against this defendant for $170 on a cognovit note and had levied an execution on the property occupied as a home by this plaintiff and was proceeding to foreclose the lien of that judgment, and the motion asked that Marion W. Bacome be enjoined from further proceeding in that action and that his judgment lien on that property be vacated. On May 13, 1950, a journal entry was filed herein which recites that on September 17, 1947, this cause came on to be heard upon plaintiff’s motion which the court granted and allowed the injunction prayed for.

On September 17, 1947, Marion W. Bacome, under authority of Section 11421-2, G-eneral Code, moved the court for separate conclusions of fact and law. In the same journal entry of May 13, 1950, that motion was overruled by the court “on the grounds that no question of fact was determined by the court. ’ ’ From the court’s order of May 13,1950, Marion W. Bacome filed this appeal on questions of law.

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss this appeal for the reason that Marion W. Bacome is not a party to this action.

True, he is not a party, but this plaintiff, by her mo *110 tion and by taking an order thereon, is estopped from saying he is not a party. If she wanted to enjoin him, as she did, she should have made him a party. Her procedure is as irregular as his and was the beginning of this comedy of errors. She has produced a situation of which she can not now be heard to complain, and her motion to dismiss the appeal will be overruled.

The injunction could not have issued without the determination of a question of fact upon which the relief was granted. The motion itself was based upon allegations of facts which were not positively verified by affidavit or otherwise. Upon such motion the court could not take judicial notice of the action of Marion W. Bacome v. Henry A. Ward and what had been done therein (Burke, Exrx., v. McKee, 30 Ohio App., 236, 164 N. E., 776) even though the trial judge may have presided in the other case. Myers v. State, 46 Ohio St., 473, 22 N. E., 43, 15 Am. St. Rep., 638. If the injunction was issued without evidence, that was error. If the injunction was issued upon the taking of testimony, an agreed statement of facts, or admissions of counsel, a fact question was determined, and, under Section 11421-2, G-eneral Code, the request for conclusions of fact found separately from conclusions of law was timely made and the failure of the court to so state them was error. Bittmann v. Bittmann, 129 Ohio St., 123, 194 N. E., 8.

The order granting the injunction is reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed.

Conn and Fess, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.E.2d 582, 90 Ohio App. 108, 46 Ohio Op. 451, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-ward-ohioctapp-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack