McGurk v. McGurk

Connecticut Superior Court

McGurk v. McGurk

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 404, 5 Conn. Supp. 404, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 16, 1937

DocketFile #51992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 404 (McGurk v. McGurk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGurk v. McGurk, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 404, 5 Conn. Supp. 404, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182 (Colo. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The plaintiff seeks an annulment of her marriage to the defendant upon the ground that their contract of marriage lacked mutuality of consent.

The petition for the annulment of a marriage on this ground requires of the Court hearing it great caution and demands clear proof. (Davis vs. Davis, 119 Conn. 203.) In this case the proof was anything but clear. The circumstances surrounding the events which the plaintiff testified took place on r the day of the wedding and during the days immediately following while apparently susceptible of corroboration were not corroborated in any particular save perhaps that of her claimed physical condition and the nature of this latter evidence was such as to leave the Court unconvinced upon its most important feature. Further, the Court is unable to give full ctedence to the testimony of the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff failed to establish by proper proof the claims set forth as a basis for an annulment of her marriage.

The petition is therefore dismissed.

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

BOOTH, J.

The plaintiff seeks an annulment of her marriage to the defendant upon the ground that their contract of marriage lacked mutuality of consent.

The petition for the annulment of a marriage on this ground requires of the Court hearing it great caution and demands clear proof. (Davis vs. Davis, 119 Conn. 203.) In this case the proof was anything but clear. The circumstances surrounding the events which the plaintiff testified took place on r the day of the wedding and during the days immediately following while apparently susceptible of corroboration were not corroborated in any particular save perhaps that of her claimed physical condition and the nature of this latter evidence was such as to leave the Court unconvinced upon its most important feature. Further, the Court is unable to give full ctedence to the testimony of the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff failed to establish by proper proof the claims set forth as a basis for an annulment of her marriage.

The petition is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 404, 5 Conn. Supp. 404, 1937 Conn. Super. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgurk-v-mcgurk-connsuperct-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack