McKeehan v. McKeehan

Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas

McKeehan v. McKeehan

56 Pa. D. & C.2d 368, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 373

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County

DecidedMay 16, 1972

Docketno. 213

StatusPublished

This text of 56 Pa. D. & C.2d 368 (McKeehan v. McKeehan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKeehan v. McKeehan, 56 Pa. D. & C.2d 368, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 373 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

WEIDNER, J.,

In this divorce action, it appears that a prior action in divorce was commenced on April 12, 1971, to May term, 1971, no. 707, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pa. However, an authenticated copy of the record in that action was not introduced into evidence. Instead, a copy of the complaint was introduced into the record. The best evidence of the facts as to prior action in divorce is a properly authenticated copy of the record and not merely the testimony of plaintiff: Raub v. Raub, 16 Cumb. L. J. 53 (1965).

Since we believe that the record can be corrected, we will return the matter to the master so that plaintiff may be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint and present proper proof regarding the prior action.

If such is done, the master may return his report directly to the court without replacing it on the argument list.

[369]*369ORDER OF COURT

And now, May 16, 1972, at 9:15 a.m., for the reasons given, the above matter is resubmitted to the master for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.

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

WEIDNER, J.,

In this divorce action, it appears that a prior action in divorce was commenced on April 12, 1971, to May term, 1971, no. 707, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pa. However, an authenticated copy of the record in that action was not introduced into evidence. Instead, a copy of the complaint was introduced into the record. The best evidence of the facts as to prior action in divorce is a properly authenticated copy of the record and not merely the testimony of plaintiff: Raub v. Raub, 16 Cumb. L. J. 53 (1965).

Since we believe that the record can be corrected, we will return the matter to the master so that plaintiff may be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint and present proper proof regarding the prior action.

If such is done, the master may return his report directly to the court without replacing it on the argument list.

[369]*369ORDER OF COURT

And now, May 16, 1972, at 9:15 a.m., for the reasons given, the above matter is resubmitted to the master for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Pa. D. & C.2d 368, 1972 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeehan-v-mckeehan-pactcomplcumber-1972.