Rood v. Rood

178 A. 173, 117 Pa. Super. 291, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 6, 1935·No. Appeal 47·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

This was an action of divorce brought by a husband against his wife, on the ground of wilful and malicious desertion.

The court below refused to enter a decree of divorce, and dismissed the libel, for the reason that the evidence did not clearly establish a wilful and malicious desertion, without reasonable cause, on the part of the wife, respondent. The reasons for its action are convincingly stated in the opinion by Judge Valentine. We have read the evidence carefully and agree with the findings and conclusions of the learned judge of the court below. On his opinion, the decree is affirmed at the costs of the appellant.

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

Rood v. Rood, 178 A. 173, 117 Pa. Super. 291, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

178 A. 173 (Rood v. Rood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fitelson v. Fitelson
150 A.2d 389 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Jablonski v. Jablonski
146 A.2d 813 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Dash v. Dash
51 A.2d 426 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Harmony v. Harmony
40 A.2d 130 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Libshitz v. Libshitz
39 A.2d 463 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Eckhardt v. Eckhardt
49 Pa. D. & C. 697 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Kiakona v. Kiakona
36 Haw. 49 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1942)
Duchossois v. Duchossois
10 A.2d 824 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Devlin v. Devlin
3 A.2d 196 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Kerstetter v. Kerstetter
29 Pa. D. & C. 495 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1936)