Case ID: ohio-law-abs_50/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TEEGARDEN, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEEGARDEN, et, Defendants-Appellees.
    Ohio Appeals, Second District, Shelby County.
    No. 138.
    Decided November 6, 1947.
    Cummins & Boiler, and Royon G. Hess, Sidney, for plaintiff-appellant.
    Richard Faulkner, Urbana, E. J. Garmhausen, Sidney, for defendants-appellees.
   OPINION

By THE COURT.

This is an appeal on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby County, Ohio. The action was one for a divorce, the petition alleging that on the 19th day of November, 1945, the plaintiff and Clifton A. Teegarden, the defendant, entered into a contract of marriage in Hamilton County, Ohio; that said contract was thereafter consummated and that she and the said defendant lived together as husband and wife. To this petition the defendant, Clifton A. Tee-garden, filed an answer denying the marriage contract. As far as this appeal is concerned we need not consider the interests of the other two defendants. '

The matter was tried to the Court which rendered a written opinion which was general in character upon both conclusions of law and fact. No separate findings of fact were made by the Court and the opinion was not made a part of the record. On the issues joined the Court found in favor of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff’s petition to be dismissed. The only issue presented for our consideration is whether or not the lower court erred as a' matter of law determining that no common law marriage existed.

The record discloses that the bill of exceptions was not duly filed and a motion to strike it from the files, was sustained. We therefore have no bill of exceptions and our determination must be based solely upon the record. Counsel for the appellant makes reference to the facts as related in the opinion of the trial court. This, however, is not a part of the record and is not subject to consideration in error proceedings. Baldwin v State, 132 Oh St 302; In re Ruhl, 36 Abs 250; Treiber v Jaster, 55 Oh Ap 64; Eagleson v McKee, 33 Abs 38.

The appellant is urging that from the facts as disclosed and »the opinion of the trial court, the judgment is contrary to law. In order to pass upon this question it is necessary that we have a bill of exceptions as it is only through this channel that the evidence can be considered by this Court.

We find no. error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.

WISEMAN, PJ, MILLER and HORNBECK, JJ, concur.