Morse v. Morse

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Morse v. Morse

81 Pa. Super. 602, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 20, 1923

DocketAppeal, 55

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 81 Pa. Super. 602 (Morse v. Morse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morse v. Morse, 81 Pa. Super. 602, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

This is an appeal from a decree refusing a divorce. The ground alleged in the libel was adultery. The evidence in support thereof consists solely of five letters, in the handwriting of the respondent, mailed from Buffalo, New York, where the respondent was living, to the libellant’s mother in Pennsylvania. Two of the letters were addressed to the libellant and were forwarded by his mother to him in this State. They amount to penitent confessions of guilt of adultery, and pregnancy resulting therefrom. But there is not a word of corroboration of the letters by evidence direct or circumstantial. Since the opinion in Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332, was written by Chief Justice Gibson in 1847, it has been a “rule of policy” in this State “not to found a sentence of divorce on confession alone.” We have given the fullest consideration to the earnest argument of the able counsel for the appellant stressing the hardship resulting to his client from the refusal of a decree of divorce in the face of the convincing character of the confessions. But until the Supreme Court changes the rule of law laid down in Matchin v. Matchin, supra, we may not sever the conjugal tie upon the uncorroborated confessions of the respondent.

All of the assignments of error are overruled, and the decree is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Gawthrop, J.,

This is an appeal from a decree refusing a divorce. The ground alleged in the libel was adultery. The evidence in support thereof consists solely of five letters, in the handwriting of the respondent, mailed from Buffalo, New York, where the respondent was living, to the libellant’s mother in Pennsylvania. Two of the letters were addressed to the libellant and were forwarded by his mother to him in this State. They amount to penitent confessions of guilt of adultery, and pregnancy resulting therefrom. But there is not a word of corroboration of the letters by evidence direct or circumstantial. Since the opinion in Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332, was written by Chief Justice Gibson in 1847, it has been a “rule of policy” in this State “not to found a sentence of divorce on confession alone.” We have given the fullest consideration to the earnest argument of the able counsel for the appellant stressing the hardship resulting to his client from the refusal of a decree of divorce in the face of the convincing character of the confessions. But until the Supreme Court changes the rule of law laid down in Matchin v. Matchin, supra, we may not sever the conjugal tie upon the uncorroborated confessions of the respondent.

All of the assignments of error are overruled, and the decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Pa. Super. 602, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-morse-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack