Legal Opinion

Clarke v. Clarke

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 14, 1926PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAmass, J.

On January 31st, 1924, the appellant was granted a divorce a mensa, el ihoro from the appellee. In the decree it was further provided that “the said plaintiff, Mae C’larke, is hot entitled to receive any alimony from the said Thomas A. Clarke: and it is further ordered that tlie defendant, Thomas A. Clarke, pay the costs of this suit, as well as a fee of thirty-five dollars as a fee for her counsel, Peter Peck.” •

That is all that the record discloses of the divorce proceeding.

On May 28th, 1925, appellant filed a petition in the same cause, in which she recited said decree, and alleged that at…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Emerson v. EmersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
  2. Wallingsford v. WallingsfordCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1825
  3. McCaddin v. McCaddinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Dickey v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
  2. Horsey v. HorseyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  3. Blades v. SzataiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  4. Winkel v. WinkelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
  5. Foote v. FooteCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API