Cairns v. Cairns

109 Mass. 408
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Wells, J.

Issues having been submitted to a jury, their verdict, finding connivance, is a bar to the divorce sought. Ho decree could be entered except in conformity with the verdict. Gen. Sts. c. 107, § 15. The answer of the foreman, in explanation of the verdict, upon inquiry by the court, was not competent to modify the effect of the formal verdict; and did not authorize the court to exercise any discretion as to the decree to be entered thereon. The only bearing such explanation could have would be upon the question whether to proceed to a decree, or to direct another trial of that issue.

Decree set aside.

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

Cairns v. Cairns, 109 Mass. 408 (Mass. 1872).

109 Mass. 408 (Cairns v. Cairns) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Garner v. Rhea Realty Corp.
494 S.W.2d 783 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1971)
Leavitt v. Leavitt
229 Mass. 196 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Burke v. Hodge
97 N.E. 920 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Engle v. Engle
133 N.W. 654 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Delaney v. Delaney
65 A. 217 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1906)
Dennis v. Dennis
34 L.R.A. 449 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1896)
Pratt v. Pratt
21 L.R.A. 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Bourgeois v. Chauvin
39 La. Ann. 216 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1887)
Elkins v. Boston & Albany Railroad
115 Mass. 190 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)