Victorick v. Victorick

Connecticut Superior Court

Victorick v. Victorick

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 263, 15 Conn. Supp. 263, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 17, 1947

DocketFile 80468

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 263 (Victorick v. Victorick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Victorick v. Victorick, 15 Conn. Super. Ct. 263, 15 Conn. Supp. 263, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

KING, J.

The plaintiff proved himself entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and intolerable cruelty. However, his attorney quite properly voluntarily disclosed that in Massachusetts, in an action for divorce brought by the wife, a decree nisi (a copy of which is in the file) had been entered in her favor on the 27th day of November, 1947.

Under the law of Massachusetts (§§ 21 and 24 of chapter 208 of the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts), the decree nisi will not become absolute for six months after its rendition, and the defendant (plaintiff in Connecticut) could not legally marry, at least in Massachusetts, for two years after the decree becomes absolute. Furthermore, the court may, upon application of any party interested, at any time within the six months’ period, order that the decree not become absolute.

The pendency of an action in one state is no ground for the •abatement of • a suit subsequently brought for the same cause of action in another state. This would be so even if the relief 'given in Massachusetts were coextensive with that given in Connecticut. Shaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., 110 Conn. 528, 535. Here the relief given to this plaintiff in the Massachusetts action will not be equivalent to that given in Connecticut for at least two years and a half after the date of the decree nisi, and, in the event that objections are interposed to the decree nisi becoming absolute, for an even longer period. Dettenborn v. Hartford Connecticut Trust Co., 121 Conn. 388, 392. It follows that the existence of the Massachusetts decree nisi is no bar to the granting of a decree to the plaintiff.

A decree of divorce may enter in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds of desertion and intolerable cruelty, and actual notice to the defendant is found.

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

KING, J.

The plaintiff proved himself entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and intolerable cruelty. However, his attorney quite properly voluntarily disclosed that in Massachusetts, in an action for divorce brought by the wife, a decree nisi (a copy of which is in the file) had been entered in her favor on the 27th day of November, 1947.

Under the law of Massachusetts (§§ 21 and 24 of chapter 208 of the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts), the decree nisi will not become absolute for six months after its rendition, and the defendant (plaintiff in Connecticut) could not legally marry, at least in Massachusetts, for two years after the decree becomes absolute. Furthermore, the court may, upon application of any party interested, at any time within the six months’ period, order that the decree not become absolute.

The pendency of an action in one state is no ground for the •abatement of • a suit subsequently brought for the same cause of action in another state. This would be so even if the relief 'given in Massachusetts were coextensive with that given in Connecticut. Shaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., 110 Conn. 528, 535. Here the relief given to this plaintiff in the Massachusetts action will not be equivalent to that given in Connecticut for at least two years and a half after the date of the decree nisi, and, in the event that objections are interposed to the decree nisi becoming absolute, for an even longer period. Dettenborn v. Hartford Connecticut Trust Co., 121 Conn. 388, 392. It follows that the existence of the Massachusetts decree nisi is no bar to the granting of a decree to the plaintiff.

A decree of divorce may enter in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds of desertion and intolerable cruelty, and actual notice to the defendant is found.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Conn. Super. Ct. 263, 15 Conn. Supp. 263, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victorick-v-victorick-connsuperct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack