From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Groff v. Groff

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Apr 2, 1929
169 N.E. 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)

Opinion

Decided April 2, 1929.

Divorce and alimony — Decree cannot be granted upon party's unsupported testimony or admissions — Section 11988, General Code — Party's entire testimony not required to be corroborated.

Section 11988, General Code, providing that a divorce or judgment for alimony shall not be granted upon the testimony or admission of the party, unsupported by other evidence, does not require that the entire testimony of the party be supported by corroborative evidence.

ERROR: Court of Appeals for Hamilton county.

Miss Sarah E. Grogan, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Harrison E. Stagman, for defendant in error.


This case comes into this court on error from the court of common pleas, division of domestic relations, of Hamilton county, Ohio, wherein a decree for divorce was granted the plaintiff below, Harry J. Groff, the husband of Gloria G. Groff, the plaintiff in error.

The petition alleged extreme cruelty; charged that the wife had a violent and ungovernable temper, and continuously quarreled with and nagged the husband; and that she had continued to do so from a time two weeks after their marriage, causing the husband great mental worry. The husband further alleged that the wife had made false, malicious, and derogatory statements as to his character and conduct to the husband's friends and associates, and other persons, causing the husband great humiliation and ill repute. The husband further alleged that the wife had made threats of bodily harm.

The evidence on behalf of the husband consisted of his testimony and that of L.C. Berkey. The husband's statements as to ungovernable temper and humiliation were corroborated by Berkey.

In a divorce proceeding, the trial judge occupies the position of the jury, and, as such, is the trier of the facts and the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The judgment of a divorce court will not be disturbed unless it manifestly appears that the final judgment is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Conflicts of evidence are to be determined by the trial court, and the opinion of this court will not be substituted for that of the trial judge.

While Section 11988, General Code, provides that a divorce or judgment for alimony shall not be granted upon the testimony or admission of the party, unsupported by other evidence, this section of the Code does not require that the entire testimony of the party be supported by corroborative evidence.

Unquestionably in the case at bar the testimony of the plaintiff husband was corroborated upon a number of the charges in the petition.

For this reason, the judgment of the court of common pleas, division of domestic relations, will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

CUSHING, P.J. and HAMILTON, J., concur.


Summaries of

Groff v. Groff

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Apr 2, 1929
169 N.E. 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)
Case details for

Groff v. Groff

Case Details

Full title:GROFF v. GROFF

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Apr 2, 1929

Citations

169 N.E. 39 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)
169 N.E. 39

Citing Cases

Hobbs v. Hobbs

18 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 45, Section 116; Section 3105.11, Revised Code. However, the statute requiring…

Geiger v. Geiger

Lesh v. Lesh, 138 Ohio St. 492, 37 N.E.2d 383; Hanover v. Hanover, 34 Ohio App. 483, 486, 171 N.E. 350. The…