Legal Opinion

Cook v. Cook

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 12, 1925No. Appeal, 313PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

We all agree that the record shows appellant committed adultery with Sommers. The evidence is circumstantial, and calls for the application of Lord Stowell’s well-known dictum, quoted by Gibson, O. J., in Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332, 338, and frequently followed since. Thirteen letters written by appellant to Sommers are in evidence, — only part of her correspondence, — the rest, having been obtained from Sommers by appellant’s brother was burned. It is unnecessary to state the contents of these letters; they are lewd, lecherous and libidinous. When her husband charged…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matchin v. MatchinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
  2. Hilton v. HiltonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
  3. King v. KingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Gruninger v. GruningerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Reighter v. ReighterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pierpoint v. PierpointSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Commonwealth v. LevitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Connor v. ConnorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Ammann v. AmmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Lisle v. LisleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API