James A. Dausuel and Marie L. Carter v. Martha M. Dausuel and Dewitt Thomas

D.C. Circuit

James A. Dausuel and Marie L. Carter v. Martha M. Dausuel and Dewitt Thomas

217 F.2d 343, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 22, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3124

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1954

Docket12033_1

StatusPublished

This text of 217 F.2d 343 (James A. Dausuel and Marie L. Carter v. Martha M. Dausuel and Dewitt Thomas) 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

James A. Dausuel and Marie L. Carter v. Martha M. Dausuel and Dewitt Thomas, 217 F.2d 343, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 22, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3124 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Some time ago the District Court granted Martha M. Dausuel a divorce from her husband, James A. Dausuel, and awarded alimony. Afterward she brought this suit to set aside as fraudulent a deed Dausuel had made to one Carter and to subject the property to her claim for accrued alimony. The District Court granted the relief sought. On appeal, we held certain evidence offered by Dausuel had been erroneously excluded as irrelevant, so we reversed and remanded for a new trial at which the evi- *344 denee formerly excluded would be received. 1

At the second trial the District Court admitted the evidence it had rejected before, but nevertheless held the deed void and ordered the property sold to satisfy the money judgment which it awarded. Dausuel again appeals. We see no error.

Affirmed.

1

. Dausuel v. Dausuel, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 195 F.2d 774.

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

PER CURIAM.

Some time ago the District Court granted Martha M. Dausuel a divorce from her husband, James A. Dausuel, and awarded alimony. Afterward she brought this suit to set aside as fraudulent a deed Dausuel had made to one Carter and to subject the property to her claim for accrued alimony. The District Court granted the relief sought. On appeal, we held certain evidence offered by Dausuel had been erroneously excluded as irrelevant, so we reversed and remanded for a new trial at which the evi- *344 denee formerly excluded would be received. 1

At the second trial the District Court admitted the evidence it had rejected before, but nevertheless held the deed void and ordered the property sold to satisfy the money judgment which it awarded. Dausuel again appeals. We see no error.

Affirmed.

1

. Dausuel v. Dausuel, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 195 F.2d 774.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F.2d 343, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 22, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-a-dausuel-and-marie-l-carter-v-martha-m-dausuel-and-dewitt-thomas-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack