Case Name: In re Morrell: Rose et al., Appellees, v. Morrell et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1963-04-24
Citations: 174 Ohio St. 427
Docket Number: No. 37971
Parties: In re Morrell: Rose et al., Appellees, v. Morrell et al., Appellants.
Judges: Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 ’Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 174
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
In re Morrell: Rose et al., Appellees, v. Morrell et al., Appellants.
(No. 37971
Decided April 24, 1963.)
Messrs. Paxton & Seasongood, Mr. Starbuck Smith, Jr., and Mr. Robert W. Crawford, for appellees.
Messrs. Aronoff, Rosen & Lerner, for appellants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
George P. Morrell's contumacious conduct in secreting both the child and himself from the court was contemptuous of the court and continues to be so, he not having purged himself of such contempt. This contempt affects the due course of procedure in the case by preventing the court from enforcing its decree.
A party in contempt of court is not entitled to prosecute or defend an action when the nature of his contempt is such as to hinder and embarrass the due course of procedure in the cause.
Appellants are not entitled to prosecute their appeal in this court. They cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid of this court while they stand in an attitude of contempt to the legal orders and processes of the courts which they seek to avoid by this appeal. Knoob v. Knoob, 192 Cal., 95; Lindsay v. Lindsay, 255 Ill., 442; Pike v. Pike, 24 Wash. (2d), 735; Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass., 257; Ellis v. Doherty, 334 Mass., 466.
The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, 0 'Neill, Griffith, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.