Rishel v. Rishel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Rishel v. Rishel

24 Pa. Super. 303, 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 172

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 14, 1904

DocketAppeal, No. 244

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 Pa. Super. 303 (Rishel v. Rishel) 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

Rishel v. Rishel, 24 Pa. Super. 303, 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 172 (Pa. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

From the record in this case it appears that subsequent to a report by a master in favor of the libellant, an order was made to reopen the hearing so as to allow additional testimony to be taken, and when the case was finally presented to the court, a mass of testimony which had been taken by the commissioner and also his first report had mysteriously disappeared. The court had made a hasty examination of the first report; its impression in regard thereto was not changed by the subsequent testimony and a final decree was entered in favor of the libellant, from which the respondent appealed. All the recent decisions of our appellate courts require full proof of a sufficient cause for divorce, and a careful examination by the courts of all the testimony. This duty is as imperative on the courts of last resort as it is on the common pleas. It may be difficult and expensive to supply the lost evidence, but this does not relieve this court of its bounden duty to have the full record before it when a final decree is made. Of whatever drudgery the court of original jurisdiction may relieve itself, in this class of cases, by appointing an examiner, neither it nor we can escape the burden of a careful consideration of the evidence in order to ascertain whether it does in very truth establish the statutory grounds for a divorce: Middleton v. Middleton, 187 Pa. 612; Hull v. Hull, 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 620; Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 193.

The decree entered is reversed and a procedendo awarded.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

From the record in this case it appears that subsequent to a report by a master in favor of the libellant, an order was made to reopen the hearing so as to allow additional testimony to be taken, and when the case was finally presented to the court, a mass of testimony which had been taken by the commissioner and also his first report had mysteriously disappeared. The court had made a hasty examination of the first report; its impression in regard thereto was not changed by the subsequent testimony and a final decree was entered in favor of the libellant, from which the respondent appealed. All the recent decisions of our appellate courts require full proof of a sufficient cause for divorce, and a careful examination by the courts of all the testimony. This duty is as imperative on the courts of last resort as it is on the common pleas. It may be difficult and expensive to supply the lost evidence, but this does not relieve this court of its bounden duty to have the full record before it when a final decree is made. Of whatever drudgery the court of original jurisdiction may relieve itself, in this class of cases, by appointing an examiner, neither it nor we can escape the burden of a careful consideration of the evidence in order to ascertain whether it does in very truth establish the statutory grounds for a divorce: Middleton v. Middleton, 187 Pa. 612; Hull v. Hull, 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 620; Howe v. Howe, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 193.

The decree entered is reversed and a procedendo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Pa. Super. 303, 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rishel-v-rishel-pasuperct-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack