Metcalf v. Metcalf

D.C. Circuit

Metcalf v. Metcalf

142 F.2d 102, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 51, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3267

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 1944

DocketNo. 8593

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 F.2d 102 (Metcalf v. Metcalf) 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

Metcalf v. Metcalf, 142 F.2d 102, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 51, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3267 (D.C. Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed appellant’s suit for a divorce, on the ground that she was a resident of New York and not of the District of Columbia. D. C. Code 1940, § 16-401. The evidence supports that finding. Appellant had been absent from her former home in the District since 1923. In the meantime she had been in China, Massachusetts, and New York. She had recently voted in New York. This, of course, involved a claim of residence there. She had continued to reside in New York City ever since. On the- other hand, she testified that she had never abandoned her domicile in the District of Columbia and did not intend to remain in New York. In deciding the issue of fact with regard to her intention, the court properly gave substantial weight to all of these facts. Shilkret v. Helvering, U.S.App.D.C., 138 F.2d 925.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court dismissed appellant’s suit for a divorce, on the ground that she was a resident of New York and not of the District of Columbia. D. C. Code 1940, § 16-401. The evidence supports that finding. Appellant had been absent from her former home in the District since 1923. In the meantime she had been in China, Massachusetts, and New York. She had recently voted in New York. This, of course, involved a claim of residence there. She had continued to reside in New York City ever since. On the- other hand, she testified that she had never abandoned her domicile in the District of Columbia and did not intend to remain in New York. In deciding the issue of fact with regard to her intention, the court properly gave substantial weight to all of these facts. Shilkret v. Helvering, U.S.App.D.C., 138 F.2d 925.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F.2d 102, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 51, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metcalf-v-metcalf-cadc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack