Farish v. Farish

D.C. Circuit

Farish v. Farish

185 F.2d 425, 87 U.S. App. D.C. 329

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1950

Docket10603_1

StatusPublished

This text of 185 F.2d 425 (Farish v. Farish) 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

Farish v. Farish, 185 F.2d 425, 87 U.S. App. D.C. 329 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a divorce case. The question is whether a five-year separation of husband and wife was “voluntary” within the meaning of the District of Columbia statute. 1 The answer depends upon whether conversations which the wife says she had with the husband did in fact occur and, if so, whether they constituted substantial efforts on her part, made in good faith, to effect a reconciliation. These are questions of fact. The trial court’s findings cannot be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. We find no clear error.

Affirmed.

Judge CLARK is of opinion that the judgment should be reversed and therefore dissents from this opinion.

1

. 31 Stat 1345 (1901), 49 Stat 539 (1935), D.C.Code, § 16-403 (1940).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a divorce case. The question is whether a five-year separation of husband and wife was “voluntary” within the meaning of the District of Columbia statute. 1 The answer depends upon whether conversations which the wife says she had with the husband did in fact occur and, if so, whether they constituted substantial efforts on her part, made in good faith, to effect a reconciliation. These are questions of fact. The trial court’s findings cannot be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. We find no clear error.

Affirmed.

Judge CLARK is of opinion that the judgment should be reversed and therefore dissents from this opinion.

1

. 31 Stat 1345 (1901), 49 Stat 539 (1935), D.C.Code, § 16-403 (1940).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 425, 87 U.S. App. D.C. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farish-v-farish-cadc-1950.