Melvin v. Melvin

— The petition herein was very lengthy. It could fairly be criticized as multifarious and argumentative. But it contained a fundamental allegation of nonresidence of both parties to the divorce proceeding, and a lack of jurisdiction of the court on that ground. Disregarding all its prolixities, it tendered a simple and material issue at that point.

Without joining issue on such allegation, the defendants chose to assail the petition as a whoie, by motion to dismiss “for want of equity.” Such motion has no warrant under our statutes. It is to be conceded that attorneys frequently resort to its…