Church v. Mehitable Church
Samuel W. Church, Libellant, versus Mehitable Church
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
By the Court.
The charge is too loose. It is impossible for the respondent to know, under such a general allegation as this, to what charge she has to answer. The allegations ought to be so certain and definite that the attorney-general may have the means of prosecuting the offenders. This offence seems growing to an alarming degree. The particeps criminis must be named, or there must be. an averment that he is unknown to the libellant. The libel was afterwards amended (1) .
Gold, for the libellant (2) .
Note. The chief justice observed that there was an excellent provision in the civil law, that every libel for a divorce shall be supported by the oath of the party that he knows or believes all the allegations in the libel to be true.
[Choate vs. Choate, post, 391.—Ed.]
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.