Brett v. Brett

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Brett v. Brett

133 A.2d 927, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 344

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1957

DocketNo. 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.2d 927 (Brett v. Brett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brett v. Brett, 133 A.2d 927, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 344 (D.C. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINN, Associate Judge.

This was an uncontested action for absolute divorce alleging desertion ¹ and for custody of minor children. From the record before us, we think plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove constructive desertion. The court, however, dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence corroborating her testimony aside from an admission on the part of defendant, which was embodied in an affidavit and given by defendant to plaintiff. The court ruled as a matter of law that corroboration was required. We held recently in the Schroeder case² that such a ruling was erroneous. Accordingly, a new trial must be granted.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

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

QUINN, Associate Judge.

This was an uncontested action for absolute divorce alleging desertion ¹ and for custody of minor children. From the record before us, we think plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove constructive desertion. The court, however, dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence corroborating her testimony aside from an admission on the part of defendant, which was embodied in an affidavit and given by defendant to plaintiff. The court ruled as a matter of law that corroboration was required. We held recently in the Schroeder case² that such a ruling was erroneous. Accordingly, a new trial must be granted.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.2d 927, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brett-v-brett-dc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack