Martin v. Martin

Richmond City Circuit Court

Martin v. Martin

1 Va. Cir. 149, 1973 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14

CourtRichmond City Circuit Court

DecidedApril 5, 1973

DocketCase No. D-5477

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Va. Cir. 149 (Martin v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Richmond City Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Martin, 1 Va. Cir. 149, 1973 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14 (Va. Super. Ct. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON

In Virginia, the venue of a suit for divorce is a jurisdictional fact which must be properly alleged and fully proved. Blankenship v. Blankenship, 125 Va. 595 (1919). Rule 1:4(d) provides that every pleading shall state the facts on which the party relies iii numbered paragraphs. Subparagraph (j) of the same Rule instructs that the essential facts in any pleading should be stated in numbered paragraphs. It seems clear, therefore, that the essential jurisdictional facts may not be properly alleged by stating them in the caption of the Bill of Complaint.

In this suit, the plaintiff has laid the venue in this court by alleging in paragraph 2 of the Bill of Complaint that the parties last cohabited in the City of Richmond, Virginia. No proof has been furnished of that fact, but instead proof has been furnished that the defendant was a resident of this City at the commencement of the suit, which fact has not been alleged.

The authorities referred to in [counsel's] letter deal not with the manner in which jurisdictional facts may be alleged but merely speak to the requirement that the plaintiff, in the caption of the bill, furnish the name and address of each defendant.

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

By JUDGE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON

In Virginia, the venue of a suit for divorce is a jurisdictional fact which must be properly alleged and fully proved. Blankenship v. Blankenship, 125 Va. 595 (1919). Rule 1:4(d) provides that every pleading shall state the facts on which the party relies iii numbered paragraphs. Subparagraph (j) of the same Rule instructs that the essential facts in any pleading should be stated in numbered paragraphs. It seems clear, therefore, that the essential jurisdictional facts may not be properly alleged by stating them in the caption of the Bill of Complaint.

In this suit, the plaintiff has laid the venue in this court by alleging in paragraph 2 of the Bill of Complaint that the parties last cohabited in the City of Richmond, Virginia. No proof has been furnished of that fact, but instead proof has been furnished that the defendant was a resident of this City at the commencement of the suit, which fact has not been alleged.

The authorities referred to in [counsel's] letter deal not with the manner in which jurisdictional facts may be alleged but merely speak to the requirement that the plaintiff, in the caption of the bill, furnish the name and address of each defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Va. Cir. 149, 1973 Va. Cir. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-vaccrichcity-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack