Hurd v. Hurd

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Hurd v. Hurd

7 Pa. D. & C.2d 131, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County

DecidedAugust 1, 1956

Docketno. 188

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 131 (Hurd v. Hurd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurd v. Hurd, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 131, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Knight, P. J.,

The complaint alleged two grounds for divorce, indignities and adultery. The master recommends a decree on both grounds. We have signed the decree because we are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the allegation of indignities.

We have not considered the ground of adultery for the following reasons: The complaint alleges that defendant committed adultery with persons whose names are unknown to plaintiff. The testimony discloses that the name of the corespondent is known and appears many times in the notes. Under the law, when a corespondent is known, he or she must be given an opportunity of defending themselves against the charges made against them. It makes no difference if the name appears in the complaint or first appears in the evidence. The evidence discloses that when plaintiff filed his complaint, he knew full well who the corespondent was. This corespondent has never been given an opportunity to defend himself or to deny the charges against him. The master should have given him this opportunity.

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

Knight, P. J.,

The complaint alleged two grounds for divorce, indignities and adultery. The master recommends a decree on both grounds. We have signed the decree because we are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the allegation of indignities.

We have not considered the ground of adultery for the following reasons: The complaint alleges that defendant committed adultery with persons whose names are unknown to plaintiff. The testimony discloses that the name of the corespondent is known and appears many times in the notes. Under the law, when a corespondent is known, he or she must be given an opportunity of defending themselves against the charges made against them. It makes no difference if the name appears in the complaint or first appears in the evidence. The evidence discloses that when plaintiff filed his complaint, he knew full well who the corespondent was. This corespondent has never been given an opportunity to defend himself or to deny the charges against him. The master should have given him this opportunity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C.2d 131, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurd-v-hurd-pactcomplmontgo-1956.