Selby v. Selby

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Selby v. Selby

61 A. 142, 27 R.I. 172, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 60

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 10, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A. 142 (Selby v. Selby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Selby v. Selby, 61 A. 142, 27 R.I. 172, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 60 (R.I. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) This court will not take jurisdiction in equity for the purpose of annulling a marriage, voidable on account of fraud in procuring it, while another ample remedy is provided by the statute relating to divorce, which forbids the granting of the same upon default or admissions by the pleadings or except upon trial before the court in open session. As was said in Leckney v. Leckney, 26 R. I. 441: “ That it was competent for the General Assembly to denominate a proceeding to annul a marriage of this kind” (voidable at the election of one or both of the parties) “ a petition for divorce, there can be no doubt. And having so. denominated it, this court is authorized to treat it as such for the purposes aforesaid.” And again: “Owing to the difference between the language of our statute and that of other States relating to the subject of divorce, but little aid can be obtained from the decisions of the courts of those States in regard to the proper construction of the statute before us.”

In consequence of the conclusion we have reached, the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) This court will not take jurisdiction in equity for the purpose of annulling a marriage, voidable on account of fraud in procuring it, while another ample remedy is provided by the statute relating to divorce, which forbids the granting of the same upon default or admissions by the pleadings or except upon trial before the court in open session. As was said in Leckney v. Leckney, 26 R. I. 441: “ That it was competent for the General Assembly to denominate a proceeding to annul a marriage of this kind” (voidable at the election of one or both of the parties) “ a petition for divorce, there can be no doubt. And having so. denominated it, this court is authorized to treat it as such for the purposes aforesaid.” And again: “Owing to the difference between the language of our statute and that of other States relating to the subject of divorce, but little aid can be obtained from the decisions of the courts of those States in regard to the proper construction of the statute before us.”

In consequence of the conclusion we have reached, the bill must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A. 142, 27 R.I. 172, 1905 R.I. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selby-v-selby-ri-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack