Heinbach v. Heinbach

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas

Heinbach v. Heinbach

27 Pa. D. & C. 214, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 90

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County

DecidedMay 11, 1936

Docketno. 487

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Pa. D. & C. 214 (Heinbach v. Heinbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heinbach v. Heinbach, 27 Pa. D. & C. 214, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 90 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Houck, J.,

The ground for divorce alleged in the libel is willful and malicious desertion. The master’s finding of fact is

“That the respondent deserted the libellant on the 15th day of March, 1929, and continued the separation against the wishes of the libellant from that time to the date of hearing.”

This is not sufficient. In order to warrant the granting of a divorce, the desertion must be willful and malicious and, before we may consider the master’s report, there must be a specific finding of fact relative to the ground laid in the libel. If the master is satisfied from the evidence that there was a willful and malicious desertion, without a reasonable cause, persisted in for the statutory period, he should make a finding of fact to that effect. The record will be remanded to the master for further action.

And now, May 11,1936, the record is remanded to the master for further action pursuant to the views expressed in this opinion.

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

Houck, J.,

The ground for divorce alleged in the libel is willful and malicious desertion. The master’s finding of fact is

“That the respondent deserted the libellant on the 15th day of March, 1929, and continued the separation against the wishes of the libellant from that time to the date of hearing.”

This is not sufficient. In order to warrant the granting of a divorce, the desertion must be willful and malicious and, before we may consider the master’s report, there must be a specific finding of fact relative to the ground laid in the libel. If the master is satisfied from the evidence that there was a willful and malicious desertion, without a reasonable cause, persisted in for the statutory period, he should make a finding of fact to that effect. The record will be remanded to the master for further action.

And now, May 11,1936, the record is remanded to the master for further action pursuant to the views expressed in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Pa. D. & C. 214, 1936 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinbach-v-heinbach-pactcomplschuyl-1936.