Commonwealth v. Branthoover

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Branthoover

98 Pa. Super. 87, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 150

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 18, 1929

DocketAppeal 133

StatusPublished

This text of 98 Pa. Super. 87 (Commonwealth v. Branthoover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Branthoover, 98 Pa. Super. 87, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 150 (Pa. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order of support for wife and child in the amount of $40' a month, pursuant to the Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78. Appellant married his wife January 20, 1927; their child was born June 29, 1927; when he married petitioner he had no doubt that he was the father of the child that she was expecting. This proceeding was begun September 3, 1929. Appellant asserts that he should not support his wife and child because of her alleged pre-nuptial unchastity. *89 Even if it were true — which we need not determine— it would not relieve him in the circumstances of this case: see generally Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417; Allen’s App., 99 Pa. 196.

Nothing has been suggested to indicate that the order is excessive; appellant is a carpenter earning $35 a week.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order of support for wife and child in the amount of $40' a month, pursuant to the Act of April 13, 1867, P. L. 78. Appellant married his wife January 20, 1927; their child was born June 29, 1927; when he married petitioner he had no doubt that he was the father of the child that she was expecting. This proceeding was begun September 3, 1929. Appellant asserts that he should not support his wife and child because of her alleged pre-nuptial unchastity. *89 Even if it were true — which we need not determine— it would not relieve him in the circumstances of this case: see generally Hoffman v. Hoffman, 30 Pa. 417; Allen’s App., 99 Pa. 196.

Nothing has been suggested to indicate that the order is excessive; appellant is a carpenter earning $35 a week.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Pa. Super. 87, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-branthoover-pasuperct-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack