Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICHARDS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 131
    MILLER v. MILLER
    Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Muskingum Co.
    No. 302.
    Decided Jan. 4, 1926
    Judge Richards of 6th Dist., sitting.
    413. DIVORCE — Where a divorce has been granted on the ground of imprisonment in the penitentiary, and while prisoner is on parole, parties are remarried, and then prisoner violates parole and is reincarcerated, another divorce cannot be granted on the same ground, as the imprisonment is under the same sentence. (Construing 11979 GC.)
    . Attorneys — Geo-. P. Leasure, Zanesville, for Elsie Miller.
   RICHARDS, J.

Elsie Miller brought an action in the Muskingum Common Pleas for divorce against her husband Wm. Miller, on the ground that he was imprisoned in the penitentiary.

Wm. Miller was first imprisoned in the penitentiary in 1922 on a charge of bigamy. While so imprisoned the wife secured a divorce charging such imprisonment as grounds. In 1923 he was released on parole, and the parties were remarried.

Shortly after this remarriage the parol was revoked and he was again confined in the penitentiary under the original sentence. Wife again sues for divorce setting up his imprisonment. Decree was denied by the Common Pleas. Wife prosecuted error to the Court of Appeals which held:

1. Sec. 11979 GC. provides that a divorce may be granted for imprisonment in the penitentiary.
2. It does not provide that two divorces may be granted for imprisonment under the same sentence.
3. The imprisonment being under the same sentence must be treated by the court as the same imprisonment for which a divorce was originally granted.
4. By her second marriage the wife condoned the bigamy and ensuing imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed.