Todd v. Todd
24 A. 128, 149 Pa. 60, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1062
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 25, 1892·No. Appeal, No. 273·Published·Cited by 13 cases
Opinion
While it may seem harsh to refuse the libelant a divorce, we are clearly of opinion that he has not made out a case within the act of assembly. The learned judge of the court below has given sufficient reasons for his decree, which render a discussion of the case here unnecessary.
The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Todd v. Todd, 24 A. 128, 149 Pa. 60, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1062 (Pa. 1892).
24 A. 128 (Todd v. Todd) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Murphy v. Murphy
205 A.2d 647 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
Kogan v. Kogan
30 Pa. D. & C.2d 424 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1963)
Masciocchi v. Masciocchi
72 Pa. D. & C. 257 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Shaffer v. Harris
71 Pa. D. & C. 587 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Pusey v. Pusey
61 Pa. D. & C. 236 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Zisser v. Zisser
60 Pa. D. & C. 21 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Fluharty v. Fluharty
193 A. 838 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1937)
Santer, Alias v. Santer, Alias
174 A. 651 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Herr v. Herr
165 A. 547 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Shouey v. Shouey
16 Pa. D. & C. 693 (Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, 1931)
Seibert v. Seibert
3 Pa. D. & C. 142 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Gard v. Gard
169 N.W. 908 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
Gondouin v. Gondouin
111 P. 756 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)