Biddle v. Biddle
Citations
- 50 Pa. Super. 30
- 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2
Syllabus
<p>Divorce — Appeals—Duly of appellate court on appeal.</p> <p>1. On an appeal from a decree awarding a divorce, it is incumbent on the appellate court to review the testimony, and to determine whether it sustains the decree of the lower, court, excepting cases where there is an issue and a jury trial; and it is all the more incumbent upon the appellate court to examine the testimony, where it appears that the decree of the court below is based upon a divided opinion of the judges of such court.</p> <p>Divorce — Cruel and barbarous treatment — Indignities to the person— Evidence.</p> <p>2. In a libel for divorce filed by the husband, it appeared that the libelant and his wife lived in a hospital where he was a resident surgeon. The libelant introduced evidence to show that his wife’s bearing towards him was unkind; that she nagged him by calling him offensive names in the presence of the family and visitors, that she disparaged his ability as a surgeon and business man; that she interfered with his professional work at the hospital of which he had charge; that she made unseasonable requests for improvements in the hospital to the trustees; that she encouraged their daughter and two sons to be disrespectful towards him; that she declared that he was unfit for his place; and that she had asked members of the board of trustees to remove him from his position. Much of this testimony was contradicted, and much of the effect of it was weakened by the explanation of the wife’s witnesses. It also appeared that the libelant constantly accused his wife without foundation, of infidelity. Held, that neither the charge of cruel and barbarous treatment nor indignities to the person were sufficiently established to justify the granting of a decree for divorce.</p> <p>3. A complainant is not entitled to divorce where the indignities relied on are provoked by the complainant party unless the retaliation was excessive.</p> <p>4. The conduct of a wife that will entitle her husband to
Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Porter, Rice
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Breene v. BreeneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-07-14· cited 68×
- Aikens v. AikensSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-07-15· cited 19×
- Forrester v. ForresterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-10-07· cited 12×
- Cantor v. CantorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1918-07-10· cited 7×
- Kaufmann v. KaufmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-07-14· cited 6×
- Whiffen v. WhiffenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-07-17· cited 2×
- Stoeser v. StoeserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1920-02-28· cited 2×
- Klair v. KlairDauphin County Court of Common Pleas· 1923-01-02
- Kehler v. KehlerSchuylkill County Court of Common Pleas· 1926-11-08
- Aller v. AllerFayette County Court· 1921-05-31
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Richards v. RichardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1860-11-08· cited 52×
- Fay v. FaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1905-03-14· cited 39×
- McMahen v. McMahenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1898-07-21· cited 22×
- Hexamer v. HexamerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1910-03-03· cited 22×
- Platt v. PlattSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1909-02-26· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.