Schladenhauffen v. Schladenhauffen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Schladenhauffen v. Schladenhauffen

59 N.E.2d 484, 317 Mass. 772, 1944 Mass. LEXIS 893

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.E.2d 484 (Schladenhauffen v. Schladenhauffen) 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

Schladenhauffen v. Schladenhauffen, 59 N.E.2d 484, 317 Mass. 772, 1944 Mass. LEXIS 893 (Mass. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal dismissed. This is a petition by Alice Gertrude Page Schladenhauffen, the wife of Robert Walter Schladen-hauffen, for separate support of herself and for the custody and support of their minor children. (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 209, § 32.) On September 21, 1943, the judge entered a decree granting her petition. The respondent appealed from that decree seasonably and requested a report of material .facts. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 11. On April 5, 1944, the judge because of mistake revoked that decree. See Chagrion v. Chagnon, 300 Mass. 309. No appeal was taken therefrom. On the same 'day the judge entered a new decree in her favor nunc pro tunc as of September 21, 1943. The fact that that decree was entered nunc pro tune did not affect the husband’s right of appeal therefrom (Diggs v. Diggs, 291 Mass. 399), but he did not appeal from that decree. Since the decree of September 21, 1943, in favor of the petitioner was no longer in force by reason of its revocation, the respondent’s appeal therefrom fell with the decree revoked. The appeal must be dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed. This is a petition by Alice Gertrude Page Schladenhauffen, the wife of Robert Walter Schladen-hauffen, for separate support of herself and for the custody and support of their minor children. (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 209, § 32.) On September 21, 1943, the judge entered a decree granting her petition. The respondent appealed from that decree seasonably and requested a report of material .facts. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 11. On April 5, 1944, the judge because of mistake revoked that decree. See Chagrion v. Chagnon, 300 Mass. 309. No appeal was taken therefrom. On the same 'day the judge entered a new decree in her favor nunc pro tunc as of September 21, 1943. The fact that that decree was entered nunc pro tune did not affect the husband’s right of appeal therefrom (Diggs v. Diggs, 291 Mass. 399), but he did not appeal from that decree. Since the decree of September 21, 1943, in favor of the petitioner was no longer in force by reason of its revocation, the respondent’s appeal therefrom fell with the decree revoked. The appeal must be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.E.2d 484, 317 Mass. 772, 1944 Mass. LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schladenhauffen-v-schladenhauffen-mass-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack