Dochelli v. Dochelli

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Dochelli v. Dochelli

3 A.2d 666, 125 Conn. 465, 1939 Conn. LEXIS 184

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 5, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 3 A.2d 666 (Dochelli v. Dochelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dochelli v. Dochelli, 3 A.2d 666, 125 Conn. 465, 1939 Conn. LEXIS 184 (Colo. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a contested trial the plaintiff was awarded a decree of divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and custody of the children, and subsequently the court granted the defendant’s motion *467 that the plaintiff be directed to pay her a sum by way of an allowance to prosecute an appeal. The evidence is not before us but the portions of the finding unattacked by assignments of error disclose adequate grounds to support the conclusion unless the acts of cruelty appear, on the whole record, to be due to paranoia rather than to a wilful intent to inflict injury. The memorandum of decision indicates that this may be the case. The defendant is entitled to a review of this situation. The questions of laches and of the effect of a claimed offer of collusion are also proper grounds of appeal as far as appears from this record. It is to the interest of the state that all questionable features of a suit for divorce should be fully investigated. Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 197, 36 Atl. 34. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the motion. Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 104 Conn. 152, 156, 132 Atl. 406.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

After a contested trial the plaintiff was awarded a decree of divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and custody of the children, and subsequently the court granted the defendant’s motion *467 that the plaintiff be directed to pay her a sum by way of an allowance to prosecute an appeal. The evidence is not before us but the portions of the finding unattacked by assignments of error disclose adequate grounds to support the conclusion unless the acts of cruelty appear, on the whole record, to be due to paranoia rather than to a wilful intent to inflict injury. The memorandum of decision indicates that this may be the case. The defendant is entitled to a review of this situation. The questions of laches and of the effect of a claimed offer of collusion are also proper grounds of appeal as far as appears from this record. It is to the interest of the state that all questionable features of a suit for divorce should be fully investigated. Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 197, 36 Atl. 34. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the motion. Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 104 Conn. 152, 156, 132 Atl. 406.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.2d 666, 125 Conn. 465, 1939 Conn. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dochelli-v-dochelli-conn-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack