Ewald v. Ewald

219 Mass. 111
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 24, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 219 Mass. 111 (Ewald v. Ewald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ewald v. Ewald, 219 Mass. 111 (Mass. 1914).

Opinion

Sheldon, J.

We do not find it necessary to determine whether there was a valid marriage between these parties. The petitioner rests her case upon the allegation that she acted with the deliberate intention of evading the laws of this Commonwealth, in which she was and has continued to be resident. She not only comes-into court with unclean hands, but she makes her wrongful conduct the very ground of her application for relief from its consequences. The court will leave her in the position in which she has chosen to place herself.

It is true that there has been some contrariety of decision as to this question in different courts; but we prefer to follow the rule laid down in a somewhat similar case in New Jersey and by the Supreme Court of New York in a case upon all fours with this. Rooney v. Rooney, 9 Dick. 231. Kerrison v. Kerrison, 60 How. Pr. 51. The question was fully examined in the former of these two cases, with a sufficient citation of authorities; and we are content to rest upon that decision.

The order dismissing the petition must be affirmed.

So ordered.

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

Related

Crease v. Crease
608 N.E.2d 738 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1993)
Poor v. Poor
409 N.E.2d 758 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Gerrig v. Sneirson
183 N.E.2d 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Fraser v. Fraser
133 N.E.2d 236 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Smith v. Smith
111 A.2d 531 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1955)
Korostynski v. Korostynski
101 N.E.2d 356 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Belcher v. Belcher
88 N.E.2d 344 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Coe v. Coe
69 N.E.2d 793 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Vital v. Vital
65 N.E.2d 205 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Taylor v. Ashe
187 N.E. 548 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Pierce Coach Lines, Inc.
183 N.E. 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Payzant v. Payzant
168 N.E. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Heflinger v. Heflinger
118 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1923)
Gardner v. Gardner
122 N.E. 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Chapman v. Chapman
224 Mass. 427 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Rubenstein v. Lottow
220 Mass. 156 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 Mass. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewald-v-ewald-mass-1914.