Jones v. Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dee. 27. Ejectment. The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1821, and afterwards the premises in question descended upon the wife, who brought this action. To sustain her title the following Act of Assembly was read in evidence: “Be it enacted, &c.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Montgomery. Dee. 27. Ejectment. The plaintiff and defendant were married in 1821, and afterwards the premises in question descended upon the wife, who brought this action. To sustain her title the following Act of Assembly was read in evidence: “Be it enacted, &c. That the marriage contract entered into between Joseph P. Jones and Charlotte S. his wife, late Charlotte S. Styer, of the county of Montgomery, be and the same is hereby annulled and made void, and the parties released and discharged from the said contract, and from all duties and obligations…
1Opinion of the Court
Jan. 28.
Coulter, J.
The case presents for the judgment of the Court a question of property between two individuals. In reaching that question, however, it is absolutely necessary to consider the social relation of the parties, and to estimate its effect on the question of property. One party invokes the protection of a clear and explicit provision of the constitution. And to reach that, we must, if necessary, go over an interposing Act of Assembly. In England, parliament has frequently annulled the contract of marriage for adultery. There is, perhaps, more reason for the practice there than…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Austin v. Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1793
3Cited by3 opinions
- Currie v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Gentry v. Mayor of Village of DodsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- City of Coral Gables v. HayesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935