Case Name: Snedaker v. King
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1924-10-07
Citations: 111 Ohio St. 225
Docket Number: No. 18155
Parties: Snedaker v. King.
Judges: Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur. . , jj j
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 111
Pages: 225–257

Head Matter:
Snedaker v. King.
Injunction — Domestic relations — Governing, controlling and directing — Action by wife to Tceep another woman from husband.
(No. 18155
Decided October 7, 1924.)
Error to the Court of Appeals of Adams county.
Grace King filed suit in the court of common pleas of Adams county against Jessie L. Snedaker, and in her amended petition alleged that she is the wife of Homer King, they having been married May 14, 1908, to which marriage four children were born, all now being under 16 years of age, who reside with the plaintiff; that about five years prior to the filing of the amended petition the defendant, purposely and maliciously, intending to win from the plaintiff the affection, companionship, conjugal relation, support, and love of her husband, and to appropriate the same to herself, wickedly, secretly, stealthily, and maliciously caused him to dislike plaintiff by making to him false statements regarding plaintiff,- and by showing him numerous marks of affection, and by writing, speaking, and communicating with him and visiting him. at his home and other places, and by other acts of conduct toward and -with him, by which means the defendant unlawfully, purposely, and maliciously caused plaintiff’s husband to begin 'to lose his love and affection for plaintiff, and to form an attachment and affection for the defendant.
The plaintiff says that upon discovering this con dition she asked the defendant to desist from, further attentions to her husband, but this the defendant declined to do, and the plaintiff says that the defendant will continue in doing these things complained of unless restrained by an order of court, by which, if permitted to continue, plaintiff will be entirely deprived of the love, esteem, affection, co-operation, aid, support, and conjugal relation of her husband. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant is financially irresponsible for the actual financial damages already suffered by the plaintiff, and as a prayer for relief the plaintiff asks that the defendant be restrained and enjoined from visiting or associating with plaintiff’s husband, or. going to or near him at plaintiff’s home or elsewhere, or at any other house or place where her said husband may be; that she may be restrained and enjoined, either in person or through an agent or employe, or otherwise, from writing or speaking to him, or in any manner, either directly or indirectly, communicating with him -by word, letter, writing, sign, or symbol, or doing or causing to be done any act or thing whatever preventing or tending to prevent plaintiff’s husband from giving to plaintiff his love, affection, companionship, conjugal relation, or support; that the defendant, her agents or servants, be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff in her peaceful efforts to speak, talk, write, and communicate with her husband, and to regain his love, esteem, support, and conjugal relation, and that upon final hearing the injunction be made perpetual, and that she recover damages in the sum of $20,000, and for all such other and. further relief to which she may be entitled, either in law or equity.
A motion was filed to this amended petition, which was overruled and exception noted. A demurrer was then filed by the defendant, which was likewise overruled. An answer was then filed, consisting of a general denial of each and every averment and allegation of the amended petition.
Upon the issues thus tendered the parties went to trial, and the court of common pleas reached the following conclusion:
“This cause now coming on for hearing, and a jury having been by the parties in open court orally waived, and the court consenting thereto, was submitted upon the pleadings and the evidence to the court; on consideration whereof the court find on the issues joined for the plaintiff, and that the allegations of the petition and each ,of them' are true, and that the plaintiff is entitled' to the relief prayed for.
“It is therefore considered and decreed by the court that the defendant, Jessie L. Snedaker, be and she hereby is perpetually enjoined from visiting or associating with Homer King, husband of plaintiff, or going to or near him at plaintiff’s home or elsewhere, or any other house or place where said Homer King may be; and that she be and hereby is further enjoined, either in person, through an agent, employee, or otherwise, from writing or speaking to him, or in any manner, either directly or indirectly, communicating with him by word, letter, writing, sign, or symbol, or doing or causing to be done any act preventing or tending to prevent said Homer King from giving to plaintiff, Grace King, his wife, his love, affection, companionship, conjugal relation, or support, and that said Jessie L. Snedaker, her agents and servants, be and hereby is enjoined from interfering with plaintiff in her peaceful efforts to speak, talk, write, and communicate with her said husband, Homer King, and to regain his lore, esteem, affection, support, and conjugal relation; to'all of which finding, judgment, and decree the defendant excepts, and asks that her exceptions'be noted of record. And the plaintiff homing waived' any damages above the sum of five ($5), the court further find that by reason of the facts set up in the petition the plaintiff has been damaged by the said defendant in the sum of five dollars ($5).
“It is therefore considered by the court that the said plaintiff, Grace King, recover from the defendant, Jessie L. Snedaker, the said sum of five dollars ($5), and her costs herein expended. Approved December 1, 1922.
“This case heard on defendant’s motion for new trial, and on consideration the court finds said motion not well .taken, and overrules the same; to which finding, ruling, and judgment defendant, by her attorneys, excepts, and her exceptions are noted of record.”
Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals, and the finding of the court of common pleas was affirmed. To reverse this judgment of the Court of Appeals, error is now. prosecuted to this court.
Mr. G. E.Bobuck, for plaintiff in error. .
Messrs. Blair & Blair, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Bv the Court.
The decree in this case is an extreme instance of government by injunction. It attempts to govern, control, and direct personal relations and domestic affairs. Among other restrictions placed upon the defendant by this decree is that of remaining away from any place where plaintiff's husband may be, and from interfering with plaintiff's efforts to commurdcate with her husband, and with her efforts to regain his love, esteem,' support, and conjugal relation. It would be only a little more extreme if the husband had been made á party defendant, and a mandatory injunction decreed requiring him to discharge all the duties of companionship, affection, love, and all other obligations, legal and moral, assumed by him when he entered the conjugal relation.
Ample and adequate provision has been made by statute whereby the plaintiff's husband may be required to discharge every obligation imposed upon him by law, not only toward the plaintiff, but also in behalf of their children. There is no averment that the husband has failed in any of these particulars. In that respect the injunction, is based upon the apprehension of the plaintiff that she may in the future be deprived of support, by reason of the alleged alluring conduct of the defendant toward plaintiff's'husband.
Such extension of the jurisdiction of equity to regulate and control domestic relations, in addition to the legal and statutory remedies already provided, in our opinion is not supported by authority, warranted by sound reason, or in the interest of good morals or public-policy. The opening of such a wide field'for injunctive process, enforceable only by contempt proceedings, the'difficul - ty if not impossibility of such enforcement, and the very doubtful beneficial results to be obtained thereby, warrant the denial of such a decree in this case, and require a modification of the judgment in that respect.
Judgment modified and affirmed.
Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur. . , jj j
Conn, J., not participating.