Gordon v. Gordon

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gordon v. Gordon

107 S.W. 410, 128 Mo. App. 710, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 80

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 S.W. 410 (Gordon v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gordon v. Gordon, 107 S.W. 410, 128 Mo. App. 710, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 80 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal was prosecuted from a decree of divorce rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that an essential jurisdictional averment is not in the petition, we will state neither the grounds of divorce alleged, nor the evidence offered in support of the allegations, which, however, séems to us to be weak in comparison with the countervailing evidence. The petition contains no averment that the plaintiff had resided within this State one Avhole year next before the filing of the petition, or that the grievances complained of were committed within the State whilst one or both of the parties resided therein. One or more of those facts must be stated in the petition to give the court jurisdiction of the cause. [R. S. 1899, sec. 2924; Smith v. Smith, 48 Mo. App. 612; Collins v. Collins, 53 Mo. App. 470; Carter v. Carter, 88 Mo. App. 302; Johnson v. Johnson, 95 Mo. App. 324, 68 S. W. 971.] We may add, that neither in the answer, decree nor elsewhere, is there any averment or finding of the requisite jurisdictional fact to aid the petition, if it could be aided; a point we do not decide.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal was prosecuted from a decree of divorce rendered in favor of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that an essential jurisdictional averment is not in the petition, we will state neither the grounds of divorce alleged, nor the evidence offered in support of the allegations, which, however, séems to us to be weak in comparison with the countervailing evidence. The petition contains no averment that the plaintiff had resided within this State one Avhole year next before the filing of the petition, or that the grievances complained of were committed within the State whilst one or both of the parties resided therein. One or more of those facts must be stated in the petition to give the court jurisdiction of the cause. [R. S. 1899, sec. 2924; Smith v. Smith, 48 Mo. App. 612; Collins v. Collins, 53 Mo. App. 470; Carter v. Carter, 88 Mo. App. 302; Johnson v. Johnson, 95 Mo. App. 324, 68 S. W. 971.] We may add, that neither in the answer, decree nor elsewhere, is there any averment or finding of the requisite jurisdictional fact to aid the petition, if it could be aided; a point we do not decide.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.W. 410, 128 Mo. App. 710, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-gordon-moctapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack