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.

ESPOSITO v. ESPOSITO (09/13/62)

September 13, 1962

ESPOSITO
v.
ESPOSITO, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1962, from decree of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1960, No. 633, in case of Joseph David Esposito v. Angelina Rita Esposito. Decree affirmed.

COUNSEL

Alfred Marroletti, with him Joseph Alessandroni, for appellant.

Julius H. Tolson, with him Solomon, Tolson & Resnick, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Watkins

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 42]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, granting a divorce a.v.m. to the husband-appellee, Joseph David Esposito, from the wife-appellant, Angelina Rita Esposito, on the ground of indignities to the person.

The parties were married on June 2, 1945. The husband, at the time of the hearing, was 39 years of age; the wife, was also 39. He is a life insurance agent employed

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 43]

    by the John Hancock Insurance Company; the wife is unemployed. There are four children born of this marriage. They are, at the time of the hearing, Joseph Carmello Esposito, age ten; Matilda Esposito, age 8; Robert David Esposito, age 5, and David Esposito, three and one-half years of age; all four children reside with their mother at 113 North Cedar Lane, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, and their father furnishes support to the children pursuant to a court order. The parties have been separated since January 30, 1960.

The Master in this case made a very clear and detailed report recommending the divorce and although we are under a duty to review the evidence de novo, we have held many times that where it is indicated that the testimony has been carefully analyzed, the credibility of the witnesses carefully weighed, the findings of the master, who saw and heard the witnesses, are entitled to the fullest consideration. Shuman v. Shuman, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 439, 178 A.2d 815 (1962); Sims v. Sims, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 439, 149 A.2d 528 (1959).

In the case at bar, Judge KELLEY of the court below, indicated the weight he attached to this master's report by holding: "The court, after careful consideration of the record in this case, agreed with the report and recommendation of the Master and has granted a decree in divorce for the reasons given by the Master in his report." After a careful study of this record and report we are in entire agreement with the court below.

This is a case where an easy-going, complacent husband was ruled for thirteen years by a nagging, domineering wife. The allegations of indignities that occurred during a period beginning about December 1, 1957 and ending with the separation on January 30, 1960, include the following: A ...


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.