Taylor v. Taylor

Superior Court of Delaware

Taylor v. Taylor

111 A. 780, 31 Del. 144, 1 W.W. Harr. 144, 1920 Del. LEXIS 23

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedDecember 6, 1920

DocketDivorce, No. 88

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 111 A. 780 (Taylor v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Taylor, 111 A. 780, 31 Del. 144, 1 W.W. Harr. 144, 1920 Del. LEXIS 23 (Del. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Boyce, J.

The court is constrained to deny the motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of mistake in the initial “T.” in the Christian name of the defendant (Carr v. Buchanan, 5 Boyce, 254, 92 Atl. 875), and also to deny the motion to amend (Wagner v. Wagner, 3 Penn. 303, 51 Atl. 603; Sindowski v. Sindowski, 2 Boyce, 547, 84 Atl. 805), and will proceed to hear the case on its merits. If the evidence establishes the fact that the correct initial in the Christian name of the defendant is “I”, and not “T”, and that she was personally served with the summons issued in this cause, and if after hearing the evidence the court shall be satisfied that a decree nisi should be granted, the court will, in entering the decree, substitute “I.” for “T.” in the Christian name of the defendant.

After the hearing:

The marriage certificate, the admissions of the plaintiff and other evidence clearly show that “I,” and not “T.,” is the correct initial for the middle Christian name of the defendant and that the defendant was served personally, and the evidence adduced establishes the fact of willful desertion on the part of the defendant as alleged in the petition.

Let a decree nisi be entered, with the initial “I.” incorporated therein, instead of “T.,” in the Christian name of the defendant.

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

Boyce, J.

The court is constrained to deny the motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of mistake in the initial “T.” in the Christian name of the defendant (Carr v. Buchanan, 5 Boyce, 254, 92 Atl. 875), and also to deny the motion to amend (Wagner v. Wagner, 3 Penn. 303, 51 Atl. 603; Sindowski v. Sindowski, 2 Boyce, 547, 84 Atl. 805), and will proceed to hear the case on its merits. If the evidence establishes the fact that the correct initial in the Christian name of the defendant is “I”, and not “T”, and that she was personally served with the summons issued in this cause, and if after hearing the evidence the court shall be satisfied that a decree nisi should be granted, the court will, in entering the decree, substitute “I.” for “T.” in the Christian name of the defendant.

After the hearing:

The marriage certificate, the admissions of the plaintiff and other evidence clearly show that “I,” and not “T.,” is the correct initial for the middle Christian name of the defendant and that the defendant was served personally, and the evidence adduced establishes the fact of willful desertion on the part of the defendant as alleged in the petition.

Let a decree nisi be entered, with the initial “I.” incorporated therein, instead of “T.,” in the Christian name of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 780, 31 Del. 144, 1 W.W. Harr. 144, 1920 Del. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-taylor-delsuperct-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack