Faunce v. Faunce

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Faunce v. Faunce

20 Pa. Super. 220, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 212

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 21, 1902

DocketAppeal, No. 255

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 Pa. Super. 220 (Faunce v. Faunce) 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

Faunce v. Faunce, 20 Pa. Super. 220, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 212 (Pa. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The parties to this action for divorce were legally married in this state in 1879 and resided in Philadelphia as husband and wife until 1884, when the wife removed to Chicago, where she has lived since that time.. She was served with the subpoena while on a visit to this state, and had due notice of the hearing before the master. The ease is free from any suggestion- of collusion and the fact of wilful and malicious desertion, without reasonable cause for eighteen years is established by clear and convincing testimony, which is not contradicted by anj competent evidence. The letter written by the respondent to the master is not entitled to any consideration as evidence in her favor, and the testimony taken in support of the libel is to be taken as verity under the facts of this case: Baker v. Baker, 195 Pa. 407.

A proceeding for divorce is subjected in the appellate courts to scrutiny from beginning'to end. Particularly is this di[223]*223rected to tbe testimony in order that the merit or dement of the application may on the whole be determined: Hull v. Hull, 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 520.

The evidence properly before the court is ample and sufficient to entitle the libellant to a divorce under authority of Baker v. Baker, supra, Smith v. Smith, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 366, Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 193, and the cases therein cited.

The decree dismissing the libel is reversed and a divorce a vinculo matrimonii with costs is now entered in favor of the applicant.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The parties to this action for divorce were legally married in this state in 1879 and resided in Philadelphia as husband and wife until 1884, when the wife removed to Chicago, where she has lived since that time.. She was served with the subpoena while on a visit to this state, and had due notice of the hearing before the master. The ease is free from any suggestion- of collusion and the fact of wilful and malicious desertion, without reasonable cause for eighteen years is established by clear and convincing testimony, which is not contradicted by anj competent evidence. The letter written by the respondent to the master is not entitled to any consideration as evidence in her favor, and the testimony taken in support of the libel is to be taken as verity under the facts of this case: Baker v. Baker, 195 Pa. 407.

A proceeding for divorce is subjected in the appellate courts to scrutiny from beginning'to end. Particularly is this di[223]*223rected to tbe testimony in order that the merit or dement of the application may on the whole be determined: Hull v. Hull, 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 520.

The evidence properly before the court is ample and sufficient to entitle the libellant to a divorce under authority of Baker v. Baker, supra, Smith v. Smith, 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 366, Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 193, and the cases therein cited.

The decree dismissing the libel is reversed and a divorce a vinculo matrimonii with costs is now entered in favor of the applicant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Pa. Super. 220, 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faunce-v-faunce-pasuperct-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack