Sears v. Sears
Pauline T. Sears v. Philip Mason Sears, Jr.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Supplementary interlocutory decree affirmed. A final decree is to be entered dismissing the libel. This is a libel for divorce in which a supplemental interlocutory decree was entered sustaining the libellee’s answer in abatement to the jurisdiction of the Probate Court for Norfolk County. The libellant appealed and the ease is before us on a reservation and report by the probate judge pursuant to G. L. c. 215, § 13. The judge found that the libellant and the libellee were nonresidents of the Commonwealth at the time of the filing of the libel and that the libellant had not established a separate domicil at that time. In compliance with an order of this court the probate judge made a number of subsidiary findings which support his conclusions. An examination of the reported evidence including the exhibits satisfies us that the findings of the judge were not plainly wrong. Bowditch v. Bowditch, 314 Mass. 410, 416 . See Fulton v. Belmont, 333 Mass. 64, 65 . The libellant argues that it was error to exclude certain testimony. That testimony was not vital to the material issue and there was no error in its exclusion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.