Case ID: ohio-law-abs_8/html/0426-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILLIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOINSKI v WARDASZKO
    Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co
    No 2368.
    Decided May 26, 1930
    Christensen & Christensen and Pierre Chase, all of Toledo, for Soinski.
    Joseph G. Gluck, Toledo, for Wardaszko.
   WILLIAMS, J.

Section 15, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio forbids imprisonment for debt in a civil action except in cases of fraud. Under 11725 GC, an execution against the person of a debtor may be issued on a judgment for the payment of money when he fraudulently incurred the obligation upon which the judgment was rendered. The holdings of the courts have been uniform that where a man, under promise of marriage, seduces a woman and the seduction is brought about by means of the promise of marriage, and he then breaks his promise and abandons her, his action constitutes a fraud in the eye of the law.

In the matter of Daniel Sheahan, 25 Mich., 145;
Mood vs. Sudderth, 111 N. C., 215;
Perry vs. Orr, 35 N. J. L., 295;
Polhemus vs. Melides, 96 N. J. L., 105;
5 C. J., Subject—Arrest, Secs. 83, 96, 113;
4 R. C. L., 154, Sec. 12.

See also the following annotations:

34 L. R. A., 639;
59 L. R. A., 957.

We have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the facts set forth in the motion for the allowance of execution against the person of the defendant, filed by the defendant, and sworn to by her, constituted a charge of fraud within the meaning of 11745 GC. The court below, therefore, could not lawfully discharge the defendant from custody without a hearing as to the truth of the charges upon evidence after arrest was made, and in discharging defendant the court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error.

The judgment of the court below will therefore be reversed and the cause remand ifor further proceedings according to law.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.