LaSpina v. LaSpina

151 Pa. Super. 175
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 28, 1943
DocketAppeal, No. 252
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 Pa. Super. 175 (LaSpina v. LaSpina) 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
LaSpina v. LaSpina, 151 Pa. Super. 175 (Pa. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On December 28, 1937, Rosario LaSpina filed his [176]*176libel in divorce, charging that on April 5, 1936 'his wife wilfully, maliciously and without reasonable cause deserted him. On June 9, 194=1, by an amended libel, the date of the alleged desertion was changed to April 26, 1936.

The desertion was admitted. Eespondent attempted to justify it by a countercharge of cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person. The case was tried on the latter issues with respondent having the burden of proof. Lyons v. Lyons, 116 Pa. Superior Ct. 385, 176 A. 792; Doemling v. Doemling, 118 Pa. Superior Ct. 426, 179 A. 813.

The master carefully reviewed the testimony which comprised nearly nine-hundred pages, and recommended that the divorce be granted. The court of common pleas adopted the recommendation and entered a final decree A. Y. M. Eespondent appeals.

Since our independent examination of the evidence convinces us, as it did the court below, that the master correctly and fairly analyzed the evidence it will serve no useful purpose, as far as the parties are concerned, to repeat it in detail here; in our opinion, it would serve no useful purpose to anyone. It is sufficient to say the weight of the credible evidence was with libellant.

And we agree with the lower court that respondent’s offer of reconciliation was not made in good faith. It was made two days before the expiration of the two-year period, which was some time after the libel had been filed and after respondent had libellant arrested for adultery. And respondent had previously spurned several offers made by libellant, some of which were made through third persons, but one of which was made by libellant himself.

The decree is affirmed, costs to be paid by appellant.

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

Related

Oliver v. Oliver
94 A.2d 124 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 Pa. Super. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laspina-v-laspina-pasuperct-1943.