Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DAVIS v. DAVIS (01/17/56)

January 17, 1956

DAVIS
v.
DAVIS, APPELLANT.



COUNSEL

Ralph S. Croskey, with him Eugene John Lewis, and Charles S. Thompson, for appellant.

Morris C. Solomon, with him Solomon & Tolson, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, and Ervin, JJ. (woodside, J., absent).

Author: Gunther

[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 405]

OPINION BY GUNTHER, J.

This is an action for divorce on the grounds of indignities. The plaintiff and defendant were married July 15, 1938, in Philadelphia, where they lived together until September 20, 1953 when the separation took place. Two children were born of this marriage.

After hearing the testimony in the case, the master recommended that a divorce be granted.

Much of the testimony is in conflict; and the master had to determine the credibility of the parties before presenting his report and recommendation. The testimony of the plaintiff, according to the master's report was clear, frank, and direct; the substantial and material parts were supported by corroborating witnesses. The testimony of defendant was conflicting and indicating an open disregard for the truth. Plaintiff was a more forthright witness while the defendant frequently vacillated and sometimes changed his answers. It is a well settled principle decided by our appellate courts that a master's conclusions in respect to credibility, while not controlling, must be given the fullest consideration. Kobryn v. Kobryn, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 472, 102 A.2d 173. Upon examination of the testimony,

[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 406]

    we find that the plaintiff's testimony supported the ground of indignities.

The indignities of which plaintiff complains were set forth in Judge KUN's opinion as follows:

"(1) Defendant mistreated plaintiff's sister, who was taking care of plaintiff after she had returned from the hospital following a Caesarean operation, and defendant accused plaintiff of feigning sickness, stating that it was unnecessary for her to have such help.

(2) When plaintiff, who had been away for the summer, returned home she found hairpins, which were not hers, in her bed, and she also found lipstick on defendant's personal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.