Micheals v. Micheals

Citations

• 65 Pa. Super. 464
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 18

Syllabus

<p>Divorce — Master’s findings of facts — Review by the court — Duty of appellate court.</p> <p>On an appeal from a decree of the Common Pleas sustaining an award of a master in divorce in favor of the libellant it is the duty of the appellate court to examine and carefully consider the evidence, and determine whether it satisfactorily establishes the facts which, under the express authority of the statutes, authorize the court to enter a decree.</p> <p>While it is the duty of the court to give consideration to the opinion of the master, particularly where the veracity of witnesses is involved, yet even on such a question the court must exercise its own judgment from an examination and consideration of the evidence, and is in no sense bound to adopt the finding of the master or treat it as casting the burden on the party excepting to his report.</p> <p>Divorce — Collusion—Credibility of libellant — Conflicting statements.</p> <p>Where a libellant, a husband, in a divorce suit swears to an affidavit that the suit was not brought through collusion between him and his wife, but in his testimony swears that he told his wife that he was going to bring the suit, and that she agreed not to defend it, such conflicting statements greatly impair the credibility of the libellant, relying on which, a master awarded a decree in his favor. Such conduct in itself is ground for dismissing the libel.</p> <p>In examining the record in a divorce suit, where a master has recommended a decree in favor of the libellant based upon the credibility of the libellant, the court will consider of little weight in determining the question of credibility, a finding by the master that the respondent and her witness were directly contradicted by a disinterested witness, where it appears that the disinterested witness testified as to what occurred at one time while the respondent and her witness testified as to what occurred at other and different times,-and that there was no contradiction at all be