Case Name: Ann Mattox v. William Mattox
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1826-05
Citations: 2 Ohio 233
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ann Mattox v. William Mattox.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 2
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
Ann Mattox v. William Mattox.
Bill for Divorce.
Divorce not granted where the applicant is living in adultery.
This case came before Judges Hitchcock and Burnet, at the May Term, 1826, in the county of Adams.
The principal charge relied on in the bill was the adultery of the husband, which was very satisfactorily proved; but on cross-examining the witnesses it appeared that the complainant was living and cohabiting with another man, who had deserted his wife, and that she had had a child by him.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The bill must be dismissed. It would, be a libel on the legislature to suppose that the statute was designed for the convenience of that class of characters to which these parties seem to belong. It was intended for the relief of injured innocence; not to encourage persons of loose morals, or rather of no morals at all, to live in the open, scandalous violation of the common rules of decency.
This application is to the equitable jurisdiction of the court, and must be decided by the principles which prevail in courts of equity. The complainant must come *with clean hands and a chaste character, not stained with the same infamy and crime of which she complains. These parties are in pari delicto, and to grant relief to either of them would be offering a bounty to guilt. It would place the permanency of the marriage contract, in every case, at the disposal of the contracting parties, and remove one of the strongest motives to that correctness and chastity of conduct which is necessary to render the marriage state either pleasant or convenient.
The ground on which this bill is dismissed is not new in the practice of this court. Many have been dismissed for a similar reason, and we had reason to believe that the practice was sufficiently known to prevent applications liable to this objection.
Bill dismissed.