Anderson v. Anderson
4 Me. 100
Opinion
But the Court overruled this objection, deeming the record of the conviction as sufficient proof of that fact.
The respondent then proved that the libellant had forgiven his offence, by subsequent cohabitation, with knowledge of the crime.
[101] Whereupon JJlden moved for leave to amend the libel, by adding a charge of extreme cruelty, and praying for a divorce a mensa el thoro for that cause.
Which the Couet granted, ordering that the libel, as amended, be served on the adverse party three months before the next term.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Anderson v. Anderson, 4 Me. 100 (Me. 1826).
4 Me. 100 (Anderson v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lipman Bros. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
100 A.2d 246 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1953)
Tucker v. Tucker
137 A. 404 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1927)