Skip to main content

Naylor v. Naylor

Citations

  • 59 Pa. Super. 547
  • 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 119

Syllabus

<p>Divorce — Master’s r&port — Findings of fact — Duty of appellate court to review the evidence — Testimony of hired detectives.</p> <p>1. The findings of fact of a master in divorce do not have the same force as the report of a referee in a civil case, or the decision of the court in a case tried by the court without a jury; but the appellate court is bound to give the evidence a careful consideration in order to ascertain whether it does in very truth establish the statutory grounds for a divorce. This principle applies whether the master’s report be in favor of or against the granting of the divorce.</p> <p>2. While it is true that it is the duty of the court to give consideration to the opinion of a master in divorce, particularly where the veracity of the witnesses is involved, even then the court must exercise its judgment from an examination and consideration of the evidence, and is in no sense bound to adopt the finding of the master or to treat it as easting the burden on the party excepting to his report.</p> <p>3. Where a master’s findings of fact are not distinctly based upon his belief or disbelief of the witnesses, but upon a supposed policy of law affecting their credibility, the court is as well able as he, to judge of the extent to which this supposed policy of law should be carried in determining their credibility.</p> <p>4. The statement of a master in divorce, that his reason for recommending that the libel be dismissed, was based upon the fact that the testimony for the libelant consisted mainly of that of hired detectives, does not disclose a proper ground for his decision, inasmuch as there is no fixed rule of law or public policy which forbids the granting of a divorce upon the testimony of hired detectives.</p> <p>5. The testimony of hired detectives in a divorce case should be scrutinized with great care, but the court will act upon it, if, by reason of its volume, its clear, distinct and positive nature, the harmony of each of its parts w

Judges: Head, Kephart, Orlady, Rice, Rige, Trexler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.