Prettyman v. Williamson
Superior Court of Delaware
Action for damages for alienation of wife’s affections. (For further facts see charge of Court.) At the trial, Mr. Ponder, for the plaintiff, in opening the case to the jury, proceeded to read the second and sixth counts in his narr, they being the counts on which the plaintiff based his suit.
1Opinion of the Court
Ppnnpwipp, J:—
There can be no objection to his reading the two counts mentioned.
It was admitted that a divorce was granted by the Legislature to Mary E. Prettyman from her husband, William F. Prettyman, without resistance upon his part, on May 26, 1897.
An offer was made by Mr. Hayes to prove by Henry Yost, that on September 9, 1897, he saw the defendant in the house of Mrs. Prettyman.
This testimony was objected to by defendant’s counsel as incompetent, because it was after the divorce had been granted by the Legislature. The objection was sustained.
Mr. Po7ider produced Richard W. Humphreys,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Satterlee v. MatthewsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Watkins v. Lessee of HolmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Bennett v. . BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Wright v. Wright's LesseeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1852
- Starr v. PeaseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Vogel v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Parker v. NewmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Hamilton v. McNeillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Luick v. ArendsNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Amellin v. LeoneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.