TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burdick v. Burdick

C. N. Burdick v. Kate Burdick

Burdick v. Burdick, 35 P. 415 (Wash. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 30, 1893
Docket
No. 958
Judges
Stiles
Citations
35 P. 4157 Wash. 5331893 Wash. LEXIS 202
Headnotes
DIVORCE — ADULTERY — PLEADING — VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT. A verification of the complaint in an action for divorce to the effect that the plaintiff believes the contents of the complaint to be true, is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of Code Proc., §760. A complaint for divorce on the ground of adultery is insufficient when it fails to allege that the last act of adultery was committed within one year before the commencement of the action and that it was unforgiven; but such defect is cured by judgment, where proof showing such facts has been admitted without objection.
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, Ki/ng County.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stiles

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*534 The opinion of the court was delivered by Stiles, J.

The statute, Code Proc., §766, which requires a complaint in a divorce case to be under oath, means only that it shall be verified as are complaints in other cases, and a verification to the effect that the plaintiff believes the contents of the complaint to be true is sufficient.

The cause of action based on the ground of adultery was insufficiently stated, because the complaint did not show that the last act of adultery was committed within one year before the commencement of the action, or that it was unforgiven. Code Proc., §764, subd. 2. But proof was admitted without objection showing both facts, and we think the judgment should stand.

This was an appeal in the name of the defendant (who had made default, and who did not appear), taken by the prosecuting attorney. No appearance was made here by the respondent. Under these circumstances some question has arisen in our own minds as to whether, in such a case, the prosecutor has a right to appeal; and we desire to say that in passing upon the case, we leave the question of this right entirely open for future consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Dunbae, C. J., and Scott and Anders, JJ., concur.

Hoyt, J., dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 219362026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Poole v. Poole265 N.W. 653 (Iowa 1936)
  2. Kronglaski v. State269 N.W. 528 (Wis. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Kronglaski v. State269 N.W. 528 (Wis. 1936)
  2. Poole v. Poole265 N.W. 653 (Iowa 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list