Davis v. Davis
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 70¡ — PETITION EQUITY APPEAR PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The provisions of section 2120 of the Kentucky Statutes, and those of the Civil Code, section 423, sub-section 3, both treating . of limitation of actions for divorce, should be construed and harmonized, if there is any conflict between , them, on reasonable grounds.
Read the full summary
Case 70¡ — PETITION EQUITY APPEAR PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The provisions of section 2120 of the Kentucky Statutes, and those of the Civil Code, section 423, sub-section 3, both treating . of limitation of actions for divorce, should be construed and harmonized, if there is any conflict between , them, on reasonable grounds. The Code is intended to set forth correct rules of procedure as to what is necessary to allege and prove in addition to a legal causé of divorce, and should be regarded and accepted as an authoritative construction of the statute of limitation as set out in the…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered th* «pinion of the court.
Appellant and appellee were married in 1881. and lived together until 1884, when appellee was convicted of murder and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, where he still remains. In January, 1896, appellant instituted this actions for divorce, relying on two grounds therefor:
1st. Living apart without any cohabitation for five years; next before the application.
2d. Condemnation for felony in this State.
These grounds are. set out in subsection 2 and 8 of section 2117 of the Kentucky Statutes. Appellant also averred'that *442her cause of action…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Messick v. MessickCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Ward v. WardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
- Poe v. PoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Colston v. ColstonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944
- Brady v. BradyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1968