Matthias, J.
¶1
I dissent from paragraph three of the syllabus and from the judgment on the ground that, the action being one for money only and not for divorce or alimony, no authority is conferred by statute to award any sum
pendente lite.
I concur in the statement of law contained in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.
Turner and Stewart, JJ., concur in the foregoing.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit county.
In the Court of Common Pleas of Summit county, Ohio, the plaintiff, a resident of the state of Pennsylvania, filed a petition in which she alleges in part that she and the defendant formerly were husband and wife; that on May 31, 1934, a son was born of this marriage; that except for a period of nine and one-half months after the birth of the son the defendant has not lived with the plaintiff or contributed to the support of their child; that since being abandoned by the defendant the plaintiff alone has maintained and supported the child; that on January 26, 1942, the plaintiff obtained a divorce from the defendant in
the state of Virginia and was awarded the custody of the child; that the fair and reasonable value of the support and maintenance furnished thus far by the plaintiff for the child is $9,360, for which she asks judgment; that the child has developed a heart ailment which will necessitate a large, future expenditure for medical and hospital care in addition to the usual support and maintenance; and that in addition to the amount for which the plaintiff asks judgment for the support and maintenance already furnished by her for the child, she should be allowed an order for the temporary support and maintenance of the child during the pendency of this action.
Service of summons was had on the defendant at his present residence in Summit county.
The plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of money for the temporary support and maintenance of their minor child during the pendency of this action.
The Court of Common Pleas, after a hearing thereon, overruled the motion on the ground that as a matter of law 'there is no statutory authority upon which to base an order for support of a nonresident child on a decree of divorce obtained in a foreign jurisdiction.'
On an appeal to the Court of Appeals on questions of law the judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with instructions to consider and decide the plaintiff's motion for an allowance for the temporary support and maintenance of the child.
The case is in this court for review by reason of the allowance of the defendant's motion to certify the record. Source: CourtListener
Court Parallel citations 80 N.E.2d 849 37 OhioOp. 495 