Sparhawk v. Sparhawk

114 Mass. 355
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 15, 1874·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The decree nisi under the St. of 1870, c. 404, § 3, did not dissolve the marriage. Graves v. Graves, 108 Mass. 314. Edgerly v. Edgerly, 112 Mass. 53. The repeal of that section by the St. of 1873, e. 371, § 5, did not make that decree an absolute divorce, but took away the authority which the court had under that section, as held in Bigelow v. Bigelow, 108 Mass. 38, to make it absolute on the petition of either party. By the express terms of the St. of 1873, c. 371, § 3, the authority thereby conferred upon the court to grant a divorce from the bond of matrimony can be exercised only “ on petition of any party to whom a divorce nisi, or a divorce from bed and board has teen granted.” The petitioner, not being the party to whom, but being the party against whom, the divorce nisi was decreed, is not therefore entitled to a divorce from the bond of matrimony. And not being divorced from the bond of matrimony, he cannot have leave, under the St. of 1873, c. 371, § 4, to marry again.

Petition dismissed.

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

Sparhawk v. Sparhawk, 114 Mass. 355 (Mass. 1874).

114 Mass. 355 (Sparhawk v. Sparhawk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ross v. Ross
430 N.E.2d 815 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Sheffer v. Sheffer
56 N.E.2d 13 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Nicolai v. Nicolai
186 N.E. 240 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Sobel v. Sobel
132 A. 603 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1926)
Shelton v. Shelton
99 S.E. 557 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
Pratt v. Pratt
21 L.R.A. 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Musick v. Musick
13 S.E. 302 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1891)