Court Opinion

ID: 9815038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:21:45.836572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:05.618947
License: Public Domain

On the merits.
Hildebrant, J.
This appeal, heretofore reduced to one on questions of law, is from a decree awarding alimony and making a division of property between the parties. The decree reads in part:
“This cause came on to be heard upon plaintiff’s amended petition, defendant’s amended answer and cross petition, plaintiff ’s reply, and the evidence, both parties being present in open court and represented by counsel. * * * The court further finds from the evidence that the allegation of plaintiff’s amended petition charging defendant with gross neglect of duty is true, *268and that plaintiff is entitled to alimony as prayed for in her petition. The defendant is denied a divorce upon his amended cross petition because he is himself guilty of a ground for divorce.”
Defendant strenuously contends that the court was without jurisdiction or power to make a division of property in the suit for alimony only.
That contention is completely disposed of by the Supreme Court in the case of Griste v. Griste, 171 Ohio St., 160, which states in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus as follows:
“1. Under the provisions of Section 3105.20, Revised Code, in any matter concerning domestic relations, the court shall not be deemed to be deprived of its full equity powers and jurisdiction.
“2. The exercise of the full equity powers and jurisdiction in an alimony or divorce action includes the authority to determine the rights of the parties to alimony and a division of property. * * *”
On June 11, 1962, this court overruled appellant’s motion to remand the bill of exceptions for additions and corrections, for the reasons stated in its written opinion.
The bill of exceptions before this court is certified to by the trial judge as being only a partial and incomplete transcript of the testimony taken at the trial.
Appellant’s principal contention is that the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Citation is deemed unnecessary to state that, in the absence of a certificate that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence, there is a presumption that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the judgment. The partial and incomplete bill of exceptions being insufficient to exhibit the other assignments of error, this reviewing court, in law, is required to and does presume “that the lower court acted wholly within the law, that the decree or judgment was made upon proper grounds, that the court below applied the law correctly, and that its action was justified.” 3 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 669, Section 715.
The judgment is affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.

Judgment affirmed.

Long, P. J., and Keefe, J., concur.