Schreiber v. Schreiber

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Schreiber v. Schreiber

134 A.2d 103, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 255

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1957

DocketNo. 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.2d 103 (Schreiber v. Schreiber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schreiber v. Schreiber, 134 A.2d 103, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 255 (D.C. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit by a wife for absolute divorce on the ground of desertion. Her evidence tended to prove constructive desertion based on acts of cruelty. At the close of her case the trial court dismissed the action. The court found that the wife “did not testify as to any act sufficient to cause her to leave the home,” and concluded “as a matter of law” that the wife was required not only to prove acts of cruelty justifying her leaving the home, but also “required to corroborate” her testimony.

The holding that as a matter of law corroboration was required was erroneous. Schroeder v. Schroeder, D.C.Mun.App., 133 A.2d 470. The extent to which this error [104]*104■of law influenced the court in reaching its final decision is not clear, but it is clear, from both the transcript and the judgment, that it had some influence. Accordingly there must be a new trial.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit by a wife for absolute divorce on the ground of desertion. Her evidence tended to prove constructive desertion based on acts of cruelty. At the close of her case the trial court dismissed the action. The court found that the wife “did not testify as to any act sufficient to cause her to leave the home,” and concluded “as a matter of law” that the wife was required not only to prove acts of cruelty justifying her leaving the home, but also “required to corroborate” her testimony.

The holding that as a matter of law corroboration was required was erroneous. Schroeder v. Schroeder, D.C.Mun.App., 133 A.2d 470. The extent to which this error [104]*104■of law influenced the court in reaching its final decision is not clear, but it is clear, from both the transcript and the judgment, that it had some influence. Accordingly there must be a new trial.

Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.2d 103, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schreiber-v-schreiber-dc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack