Moore v. Moore

179 F.2d 38, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2610
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 12, 1949
Docket9996_1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 F.2d 38 (Moore v. Moore) 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
Moore v. Moore, 179 F.2d 38, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2610 (D.C. Cir. 1949).

Opinion

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

Appellant attacks a limited divorce for cruelty, granted his wife, upon the ground of insufficient evidence to support the judgment.

The courts of this jurisdiction have held consistently that under its laws 1 where there is no physical violence a divorce for cruelty will not lie unless the mistreatment has caused injury to the health of the complaining spouse. 2

In the present case there was no physical violence or abuse, and no evidence that the wife’s health had suffered by reason of the husband’s mistreatment and neglect. In these circumstances it is dear that the charge of cruelty was not proved. Therefore, the judgment is

Reversed.

EDGERTON, J., concurs in the result.

1

. Sec. 4, Act of June 19, 1860, 12 Stat. at Large, p. 59, 31 Stat 1345, ch. 854, § 966, March 3, 1901, D.C.Code 1929, Tit. 14, § 63, 49 Stat 539, ch. 453, § 1, Aug. 7,1935, D.C.Code 1940, § 16—403.

2

. Densmore v. Densmore, 1888, 6 Mackey 544, 17 D.C. 544; Ogden v. Ogden, 1900, 17 App.D.C. 104; Waltenberg v. Waltenberg, 1924, 54 App.D.C. 383, 298 F. 842; Trice v Trice, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 328, 5 F.2d 543; Taylor v. Taylor, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 316, 67 F.2d 582; Kimmell v. Kimmell, 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 177, 171 F.2d 340.

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

Related

Schreiber v. Schreiber
139 A.2d 278 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 F.2d 38, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 16, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-moore-cadc-1949.