Reardon v. Reardon

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Reardon v. Reardon

187 N.E.2d 848, 345 Mass. 772

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 4, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 N.E.2d 848 (Reardon v. Reardon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reardon v. Reardon, 187 N.E.2d 848, 345 Mass. 772 (Mass. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. The libel alleged cruel and abusive treatment and gross and confirmed habits of intoxication. The evidence is not reported but the probate judge filed a report of material facts. He found no cruel and abusive treatment’ and further found that the libellee was “a good father, a good husband, a good provider, a steady, sober worker and anything but an habitual druiikard.” The judge’s findings of fact must be taken as true in every respect unless the general findings are inconsistent as a matter of law with particular findings. Quigley v. Quigley, 310 Mass. 415, 416. There is no inconsistency here. The burden was on the libellant to prove the allegations of her libel. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 325 Mass. 278, 280. This she did not do.

The case was submitted on briefs.

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

Decree affirmed. The libel alleged cruel and abusive treatment and gross and confirmed habits of intoxication. The evidence is not reported but the probate judge filed a report of material facts. He found no cruel and abusive treatment’ and further found that the libellee was “a good father, a good husband, a good provider, a steady, sober worker and anything but an habitual druiikard.” The judge’s findings of fact must be taken as true in every respect unless the general findings are inconsistent as a matter of law with particular findings. Quigley v. Quigley, 310 Mass. 415, 416. There is no inconsistency here. The burden was on the libellant to prove the allegations of her libel. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 325 Mass. 278, 280. This she did not do.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 N.E.2d 848, 345 Mass. 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reardon-v-reardon-mass-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack