Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_12/html/0439-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VOORHEES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DIVORCE — SUPPORT OF CHILDREN.
    [Tuscarawas (5th) Circuit Court,
    November Term, 1899.]
    Adams, Douglass and Voorhees, JJ.
    
      Samuel L. Douglass v. Sarah E. Douglass.
    Wife Cannot Recover Against Husband for Maintenance of Children, When.
    Where a husband obtained a divorce a vinculo from his wife on account of her aggression, but the court by its dercee assigned the custody of their minor children to the wife without an order respecting their maintenance, and while in her custody she furnished to them necessaries, she cannot recover against her former husband, their father, for such necessaries, in the absence of proof of an express agreement by him to pay for such necessaries, or of a request that they should be furnished to the children.
    Heard on Error.
    
      J. A. Buchanan, for plaintiff in error, cited:
    Fulton v. Fulton, 52 O. S. 229 [89 N. E. Rep. 729; 29 L. R. A. 678; 49 Am. St. Rep. 720]; Christoff v. Christoff, 8 Circ. Dec. 562 (6 R. 512); Brow v. Brightman, 136 Mass. 187; Courtright v. Courtright, 40 Mich. 633; Conn v. Conn, 57 Ind. 323; Thomas v. Thomas, 41 Wis. 229; Gishwiler v. Dodez, 4 O. S. 615, 621; Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Palmer, 76 N. W. Rep. 169 [55 Neb. 559]; Ramsey v. Ramsey, 23 N. E. Rep. 69 [121 Ind. 215; 6 E. R. A. 682]; Wright v. McLariuau, 92 Ind. 103; Davis v. Davis, 85 Ind. 157; Fitler v. Fitler, 33 Pa. St. 50; Fross’ Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 258.
    
      
      J. H Mitchell and E. E. Lindsay, for defendant in error, cited :
    Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 45 O. S. 452 [15 N. E. Rep. 471; 4 Am. St. Rep. 542]; Fulton v. Fulton, supra-, 17 Am. & Eng. Euc. Raw (1 Ed.) 354; 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 124, 131.
    
      
      Affirmed by the Supreme Court, without report, 64 Ohio St. 605.
    
   VOORHEES, J.

The defendant in error, Sarah E. Douglass, brought her action against the plaintiff in error in the common pleas court, averring in her amended petition in substance, that on October 29, 1877, she was married to the defendant; that children were born of the marriage and are named in the petition; that at the February term of said court, 1887, such proceedings were had in an action in said court between the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff hqrein, Samuel R. Douglass, was divorced from the defendant, Sarah E. Douglass, and she was awarded the care and custody of the children; that ever since said decree, said parties have lived separate and apart, and said children have lived apart from the plaintiff in error; that Bessie Douglass, one of said children, has been supported by said Sarah E. Douglass; she is a dwarf and crippled; her condition is given more in detail in her amended petition; that she furnished this child support up to the time of bringing her action, claiming therefor $2,184.

She further says from the time of the decree of divorce up to June 15, 1896, she furnished Roy C. Douglass, another child born of said marriage, with board, etc., to the amount and value of $3.50 per week; she avers that the plaintiff is the owner of real estate, and is well able to support said children, averring the amount for which she should have judgment.

To this amended petition the defendant files an amended answer.

The issues presented, briefly stating them, are these: That these parties were married; children were born of their marriage; one of the children is a cripple for life; proceedings in divorce were commenced and prosecuted to termination, resulting in a divorce in favor of the husband; the custody and care of the children were decreed, in the divorce proceeding, to the wife, and no further condition imposed than simply decreeing their custody and care. After the divorce the care and attention thus devolved upon the mother, she brings a suit and seeks to recover for the support and maintenance thus furnished by her to the children of this marriage after the divorce and without showing or averring any agreement for the same.

Defendant in error, recovered on her petition against plaintiff in error.

The case comes into this court on error. A bill of exceptions embodying the evidence is submitted for review by this court.

We think there is only one question that is necessary to be passed upon to determine the rights of the parties as presented by the record, and that is, whether, after a divorce a vinculo has been granted in favor of the husband on account of the aggression of the wife, she can recover from the husband for the support and maintenance of the children furnished by her. This is the only real question we have here, and an answer to this will determine the rights of the parties in this litigation. We think this question is settled bv the Supreme Court of our state in Fulton v. Fulton, 52 Ohio St. 229 [39 N. E. Rep. 729; 29 L. R. A. 678; 49 Am. St. Rep. 720], where it is held that: Where a divorce, a vinculo, has been granted to a husband on account of the aggression of the wife, and the minor children of the parties assigned to the custody of the divorced wife, without an order respecting their maintenance, and while so in her custody she furnished to them necessaries, she cannot recover against her former husband, their lather, for her expenditures in this behalf, in the absence of proof of a promise by him to pay for such necessaries or of a request that they should be furnished to the children.” ■

It is not cláimed in the case at bar that there was any express agreement between these parties that the husband would furnish or pay for this support.

It is important to look further into this case, as the question before us is certainly an extraordinary one; and if it were possible for the court, in view of the facts in the case, we would be glad to give relief to this mother who has furnished care and attention to this unfortunate child.

In Fulton v. Fulton, supra, Judge Pradbury, at page 240, says: ‘‘And although the separation and divorce were caused by the misconconduct of the mother, it may nevertheless be true that the obligation of the father to reasonably provide for his children will follow them into the custody of the delinquent mother, when circumstances require them to be placed in her custody. If, however, under such circumstances, it does so follow them, the reason and limit of this obligation of the father should be found in the necessities of the children. As to them, the’ natural obligation of protection, nurture and maintenance, press with equal force upon the parents. By the divorce, a vinculo, the mother is as completely absolved from the marital relations as she would be by death, and if, in the course of the proceeding which end in an absolute divorce, the minor children are put under her control, by her procurement or in response to her wishes, her direct obligation towards them so long as she retains them would seem to be founded upon as substantial considerations as if she was a widow. Their daily wants must be satisfied. Constant supervision may be necessary. Can their divorced mother, who has received them into her custody, abandon them in the one case and not in the other? We think not. By receiving them into her cus^ tody, she should be held, as to them, to assume the obligations incident to that custody. If, under these circumstances, where her own misconduct has destroyed the family relation, and deprived the father of the custody and society of his children, she has in fact maintained her children, she has no claim, legal or moral, to demand reimbursement from the..a'.her. She has simply discharged a duty cast upon her by the plainest principes of natural justice, for the reason that the necessity for it arose from her own misconduct.” The case of Christoff v.. Christoff, 3 Circ. Dec. 562 (6 R. 512), is in harmony with this holding.

We are not unmindful of the claim made here, that in the divorce proceeding there was an answer, in which she set up, perhaps, a defense, and that the answer was withdrawn for some reason, which this court cannot inquire into. This court is powerless to interfere with the divorce that was granted between these parties. We must look at the case as it is presented in 'the record. Where there is a divorce, a vinculo, on account of the aggression of the wife — in other words, where the husband has obtained a divorce from his wife and the custody of the children are decreed to her, and she then, in the discharge of that duty, which she then assumes, and which the law has placed upon her furnished them support, she cannot look i-o ’he former husband for reimbursement, unless she can found her claim upon an express contract or promise that he had agreed so to do. This is not the case here, and, therefore, we will have to answer the question under the tacts in this case, as they are presented in the record, that the plaintifl has no cause of action against the husband for the support that she has furnished these children.

The wife’s remedy, if she has one, would be in a reconsideration of her claim for alimony. Olney v. Watts, 43 Ohio St. 499 [3 N. E. Rep. 354]; Rogers v. Rogers, 51 Ohio St. 1 [36 N. E. Rep. 310].

Therefore, the judgment of the court below will have to be reversed and cause remanded to the common pleas court for further proceeding. Judgment reversed.