Oxley v. Oxley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 152, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from decree of C. P. McKean Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 162, on libel for diyorce. Libel for diyorce. . The facts appear by the opinion of Morrison, J., which was as follows: The libellant and respondent in this case are both residents of the city of Bradford, McKean county, having resided there from childhood. They were married February 5,1898, at Limestone, N. Y., and have both resided in Bradford city ever since.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 152, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from decree of C. P. McKean Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 162, on libel for diyorce. Libel for diyorce. . The facts appear by the opinion of Morrison, J., which was as follows: The libellant and respondent in this case are both residents of the city of Bradford, McKean county, having resided there from childhood. They were married February 5,1898, at Limestone, N. Y., and have both resided in Bradford city ever since. The libellant charges that the respondent has offered such indignities to the person of the libellant as to render her condition…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
An examination of the record in this case has satisfied us that the learned judge’s findings of fact, upon which the decree is based were fully warranted by the evidence duly taken and reported by the learned commissioner appointed for that purpose. There appears to be no ground on which the validity of said decree can be successfully assailed.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellant’s costs.
2Cited by15 opinions
- Krug v. KrugSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Baker v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Bonomo v. BonomoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Lynn v. LynnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Johnson v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.