A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3Howard, George Elliott
History
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Vol. 3 of 3
Howard, George Elliott
Families; Marriage -- History
Thus matters stood until 1853, when a measure appeared by which the
law was much relaxed in several important respects. Jurisdiction,
which since 1804 had remained solely in the supreme tribunal of the
state, was now vested in the several courts of common pleas. In
addition to the six grounds for full divorce already created, four
new causes were recognized. These were (7) fraudulent contract; (8)
gross neglect of duty; (9) habitual drunkenness for three years; and
(10) a decree of divorce in another state "by virtue of which the
party who shall have obtained such decree shall have been released
from the obligations of the marriage contract, while the same
remains binding upon the other."[411]
[411] Act of March 11, 1853: SWAN, _Stat. of Ohio_ (1854),
324-28. But the provision regarding sentence and imprisonment is
differently worded. At present (BATES, _Ann. Rev. Stat._ (1900),
II, 2948) the paragraph reads: "The imprisonment of either party
in a penitentiary under sentence thereto; but the petition for
divorce under this clause shall be filed during the imprisonment
of the adverse party."
These ten causes of absolute divorce are still sanctioned by Ohio
law. No provision is made for limited divorce; but there is an
"action for alimony, which is in effect a limited divorce, and
which may be brought by the wife for any of the following causes,"
also sanctioned by the act of 1853: (1) adultery; (2) any gross
neglect of duty; (3) abandonment without good cause; (4) separation
in consequence of the husband's ill-treatment, whether the wife is
maintained by him or not; (5) habitual drunkenness; and (6) sentence
to imprisonment in a penitentiary, if application be made while the
husband is so confined.[412]
[412] For the present law of Ohio see BATES, _Ann. Rev. Stat._
(1897), II, 2804-10. _Cf._ WRIGHT, _Report_, 106. Jurisdiction is
still vested in the courts of common pleas, although in certain
counties the probate courts have cognizance: BATES, _op. cit._,
II, 2804.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account