Case ID: ohio-law-abs_6/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOUCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEIGER v. GEIGER.
    Ohio Appeals, 5th Dist., Licking Co.
    Jones, Jones & Overturf, Fletcher S. Scott, and Daniel Klotz, for plaintiff in error.
    Fitzgibbon, Montgomery & Black, for defendant in error.
    957. PROBATE COURT — 681. Jurisdiction — 1104. Statutes.
    Article IV, Section 8, Ohio Constitution, broad enough to authorize grant of jurisdiction, under 10494 GC., over divorce, alimony, partition and mortgage foreclosure, to Probate Courts Legislature may designate.
    291. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
    1. That lower court has declared 10496 GC. unconstitutional does not require holding that 10494 GC. is also' unconstitutional.
    2. Where constitutional and unconstitutional provisions would probably not have passed, one without the other, entire act is invalid, but if Legislature would probably have passed one without the other, then part of act may be declared unconstitutional and remainder stand as valid.
   HOUCK, J.

1. Article IV, Section 8 of the Constitution of Ohio, providing that Probate Court shall .have jurisdiction to issue marriage licenses, and such other jurisdiction in any county or counties as may be provided by law, is sufficiently broad to authorize grant of jurisdiction under Section 10494, General Code, over proceedings’ in divorce, alimony, partition, and mortgage foreclosure to any one or more Probate Courts in state as Legislature may designate.

2. That lower court has declared Section 10496, General Code, unconstitutional does not require holding that Section 10494, independent of previous section granting Probate Courts of particular counties • jurisdiction in proceedings ill divorce, etc., is also unconstitutional.

3. Where constitutional and unconstitutional provisions are so connected and interdependent in subject matter that Legislature would not probably have passed one without the other, the entire act is invalid, but if parts are independent .of each other and Legislature would probably have passed one without the other, then part of act may be declared unconstitutional and remainder stand as valid.

(Shields and Lemmert, JJ., concur.)

For reference to full opinion, see Omnibus Index, last page, this issue.