Becker v. Becker

Indiana Supreme Court

Becker v. Becker

66 N.E. 1010, 160 Ind. 407, 1903 Ind. LEXIS 83

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1903

DocketNo. 20,045

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 66 N.E. 1010 (Becker v. Becker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becker v. Becker, 66 N.E. 1010, 160 Ind. 407, 1903 Ind. LEXIS 83 (Ind. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Monks, J.

Appellee sued for and obtained a decree of divorce and judgment for alimony.

It is insisted by appellant that proof of appellee’s residence in the county and State was not made by two witnesses, who were “resident freeholders and householders of the State,” as required by §1043 Burns 1901, §1031 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901. We find, on examination of the evidence, that it was not shown that said witnesses possessed the qualifications reqrdred by said section. It follows that there was no evidence to sustain the allegations of the complaint in regard to appellee’s residence, as required by, said section of the statute, and that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The judgment' is therefore reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Monks, J.

Appellee sued for and obtained a decree of divorce and judgment for alimony.

It is insisted by appellant that proof of appellee’s residence in the county and State was not made by two witnesses, who were “resident freeholders and householders of the State,” as required by §1043 Burns 1901, §1031 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901. We find, on examination of the evidence, that it was not shown that said witnesses possessed the qualifications reqrdred by said section. It follows that there was no evidence to sustain the allegations of the complaint in regard to appellee’s residence, as required by, said section of the statute, and that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The judgment' is therefore reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.E. 1010, 160 Ind. 407, 1903 Ind. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-becker-ind-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack