Reilly v. Reilly

D.C. Circuit

Reilly v. Reilly

182 F.2d 108, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 1950

Docket10332

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 182 F.2d 108 (Reilly v. Reilly) 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

Reilly v. Reilly, 182 F.2d 108, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758 (D.C. Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Consideration of this appeal leads to the following conclusions:

The evidence was sufficient to support the granting of a limited divorce for cruelty in favor of appellee.

The court had jurisdiction under its general equity powers to adjudicate and settle a dispute between the parties concerning their respective rights in funds and property which had been acquired by them during marriage, or incident thereto. 11 D. C.Code (1940) § 325; Baxt v. Baxt, 1946, 320 Mass. 762, 70 N.E.2d 799; Novick v. Novick, 1937, 299 Mass. 15, 11 N.E.2d 481; Gibbons v. Gibbons, 1936, 296 Mass. 89, 4 N.E.2d 1019.

Title 16, § 409, District of Columbia Code (1940) does not apply. Its provision for apportionment relates only to property in which a tenancy, joint or by entireties, dissolves by operation of the aforegoing statute through a decree for absolute divorce or nullity of marriage.

*109 In this case, agreeably to rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the general equity powers of the court were invoked by joining in a single action prayers for a limited divorce and for adjudication of an existing dispute between the parties concerning property rights. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 1942, 311 Mass. 709, 42 N.E.2d 838; Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 1940, 373 Ill. 352, 26 N.E.2d 108, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 22, 85 L.Ed. 417; Cohagan v. Cohagan, 1920, 294 Ill. 439, 128 N.E. 494. See Note, 93 A.L.R. 327.

The judgment is

Affirmed. •

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

PER CURIAM.

Consideration of this appeal leads to the following conclusions:

The evidence was sufficient to support the granting of a limited divorce for cruelty in favor of appellee.

The court had jurisdiction under its general equity powers to adjudicate and settle a dispute between the parties concerning their respective rights in funds and property which had been acquired by them during marriage, or incident thereto. 11 D. C.Code (1940) § 325; Baxt v. Baxt, 1946, 320 Mass. 762, 70 N.E.2d 799; Novick v. Novick, 1937, 299 Mass. 15, 11 N.E.2d 481; Gibbons v. Gibbons, 1936, 296 Mass. 89, 4 N.E.2d 1019.

Title 16, § 409, District of Columbia Code (1940) does not apply. Its provision for apportionment relates only to property in which a tenancy, joint or by entireties, dissolves by operation of the aforegoing statute through a decree for absolute divorce or nullity of marriage.

*109 In this case, agreeably to rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the general equity powers of the court were invoked by joining in a single action prayers for a limited divorce and for adjudication of an existing dispute between the parties concerning property rights. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 1942, 311 Mass. 709, 42 N.E.2d 838; Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 1940, 373 Ill. 352, 26 N.E.2d 108, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 22, 85 L.Ed. 417; Cohagan v. Cohagan, 1920, 294 Ill. 439, 128 N.E. 494. See Note, 93 A.L.R. 327.

The judgment is

Affirmed. •

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F.2d 108, 86 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-reilly-cadc-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack