Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1955, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, June T., 1952, No. 109, in case of Rose Loiacono v. Anthony Loiacono and Dorothy Ida Brittain. Judgment affirmed.
Leighton R. Scott, with him Hogan & Scott, for appellants.
Chauncey D. Howell, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ. (hirt, J., absent).
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 388]
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered by the court below in which it was adjudged that the divorce which Anthony Loiacono obtained from Rose Loiacono in Nevada was void within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that the marriage of Anthony and Dorothy Ida Brittain entered into after the divorce was also void within this Commonwealth.
The petition for a declaratory judgment was filed by Rose Loiacono against Anthony Loiacono and Dorothy Ida Brittain under the provisions of the Uniform
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 389]
Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18, 1923, P.L. 840 its amendments and supplements, 12 PS §§ 831-853. Such proceedings are permissible under the terms of this act to establish her marital relationship with the man she married: Melnick v. Melnick, 147 Pa. Superior Ct. 564, 25 A.2d 111 (1942).
A trial was held before the lower court in accordance with the practice for trials in equity cases. See section 6 of above act, 12 PS § 852.
The court made a number of findings of fact about which there is no serious complaint by the defendants who appealed from the judgment.
The only question presented on appeal is whether the delay of the plaintiff "in bringing the action indicates such bad faith on (her) part so as to make her guilty of ...