Holman v. Holman

The judgment from which the appeal was prosecuted was reversed by this court because we thought the testimony of appellee, as a witness, that she never sued Wiley Thompson for a divorce and that she was never served with any citation in any divorce suit, effectually rebutted (Peters v. Lohr, 35 S. D. 372, 152 N. W. 504; Moore v. Wooten (Tex. Com. App.) 280 S. W. 742; True v. Railway Co., 42 S. D. 35, 173 N. W. 642) the presumption that she and Wiley had been divorced, which should have been indulged in the absence of any testimony to the contrary. See 283 S. W. 271. A writ of error having…