Williams v. Williams

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Williams v. Williams

2 D.C. 164

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1935·No. Equity No. 55977·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

LUHRING, J.

The evidence establishes that at the time of his marriage to the plaintiff, the defendant had contracted syphilis and concealed this fact from her. In July, 1933, upon examination, there was a positive Wasserman reaction in the blood and spinal fluid.

The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of annulment.

That counsel for the defendant, who was appointed by the Court, is entitled to a fee of $75.00 for services rendered, payable by the plaintiff.

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

MEMORANDUM

LUHRING, J.

The evidence establishes that at the time of his marriage to the plaintiff, the defendant had contracted syphilis and concealed this fact from her. In July, 1933, upon examination, there was a positive Wasserman reaction in the blood and spinal fluid.

The Court finds, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of annulment.

That counsel for the defendant, who was appointed by the Court, is entitled to a fee of $75.00 for services rendered, payable by the plaintiff.

Williams v. Williams, 2 D.C. 164 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

2 D.C. 164 (Williams v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.