Dickinson v. Dickinson

D.C. Circuit

Dickinson v. Dickinson

8 F.2d 909, 56 App. D.C. 48, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1925

DocketNo. 4193

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F.2d 909 (Dickinson v. Dickinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickinson v. Dickinson, 8 F.2d 909, 56 App. D.C. 48, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, dismissing appellant's petition for an. absolute divorce.

The evidence for the appellant, introduced in open court, was circumstantial in character and confined to the testimony of private detectives and their assistants. The implications raised by this testimony were not only denied by the appellee and the alleged co-respondent, but the testimony of disinterested witnesses tended to contradict that of the witnesses for appellant. The court below heard these witnesses, and hence was in a far better position to decide the issues óf fact involved than are we. Following our practice in similar cases, we affirm ihe decree, with costs. See McKitrick v. McKitrick, 261 F. 451, 49 App. D. C. 109; Topham v. Topham, 269 F. 1013, 50 App. D. C. 229; Allen v. Allen, 285 F. 962, 52 App. D. C. 228.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, dismissing appellant's petition for an. absolute divorce.

The evidence for the appellant, introduced in open court, was circumstantial in character and confined to the testimony of private detectives and their assistants. The implications raised by this testimony were not only denied by the appellee and the alleged co-respondent, but the testimony of disinterested witnesses tended to contradict that of the witnesses for appellant. The court below heard these witnesses, and hence was in a far better position to decide the issues óf fact involved than are we. Following our practice in similar cases, we affirm ihe decree, with costs. See McKitrick v. McKitrick, 261 F. 451, 49 App. D. C. 109; Topham v. Topham, 269 F. 1013, 50 App. D. C. 229; Allen v. Allen, 285 F. 962, 52 App. D. C. 228.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F.2d 909, 56 App. D.C. 48, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickinson-v-dickinson-cadc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack