Summers v. Summers

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas

Summers v. Summers

7 Pa. D. & C.2d 314, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 204

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County

DecidedMay 3, 1956

DocketNo. 2; no. 237

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 314 (Summers v. Summers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Summers v. Summers, 7 Pa. D. & C.2d 314, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 204 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Forrest, J.,

In this action of divorce, defendant filed an answer containing new matter in which she averred: “Plaintiff and defendant were formerly husband and wife, but were divorced by decree of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, rendered May 23, 1955 and signed May 27,1955, as appears in the records of that court. . . .”

[315]*315A photostatic copy of said decree was attached to the answer. Plaintiff failed to reply to the new matter. Pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1034, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The bona fides of the domicile of defendant in Louisiana or the validity of the Louisiana decree has not been questioned. Judgment for defendant on the pleadings is permissible in divorce actions: Pa. R. C. P. 1135. Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant agree that this is a proper case for the entry of such judgment.

And now, May 3, 1956, the complaint is dismissed. Costs to be paid by plaintiff.

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

Forrest, J.,

In this action of divorce, defendant filed an answer containing new matter in which she averred: “Plaintiff and defendant were formerly husband and wife, but were divorced by decree of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, rendered May 23, 1955 and signed May 27,1955, as appears in the records of that court. . . .”

[315]*315A photostatic copy of said decree was attached to the answer. Plaintiff failed to reply to the new matter. Pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1034, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The bona fides of the domicile of defendant in Louisiana or the validity of the Louisiana decree has not been questioned. Judgment for defendant on the pleadings is permissible in divorce actions: Pa. R. C. P. 1135. Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendant agree that this is a proper case for the entry of such judgment.

And now, May 3, 1956, the complaint is dismissed. Costs to be paid by plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C.2d 314, 1956 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summers-v-summers-pactcomplmontgo-1956.