TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Marshall v. Marshall

THOMAS W. MARSHALL v. LAURA MARSHALL

Marshall v. Marshall, 91 A. 1067 (Md. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 6, 1914
Judges
Stockbridge
Citations
91 A. 1067122 Md. 694
Syllabus
Divorce proceedings: uncorroborated testimony of complainant insufficient; alimony and costs; relative means of the parties. A decree of divorce will not be granted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant alone. p. 694 The amendment of the law, relating to the competency of a husband and wife as witnesses, does not make proper the granting of a decree of divorce upon no other than their uncorroborated evidence. p. 694 The failure of the defendant in a suit for divorce to call as a witness the person named in the bill, as the one with whom the bill alleged that the defendant had had the relations complained of, is not such a corroboration of evidence as to justify the granting of the divorce upon no other testimony than that of the complainant. p. 694 Upon applications for divorce the Court, in granting or refusing alimony and in awarding costs, may consider the relative means of the parties. p. 694 Certain exhibits filed in divorce proceedings, relating to the conduct and morals of the defendant, ipere held -not to be admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff, where such evidence had not been in any way connected with the person because of whose alleged relations with the defendant the decree of divorce wras prayed for. p. 694
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. (Dueey, J.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Stockbridge

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

Stockbridge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 21916: 11917: 11922: 11929: 11936: 119142026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thiess v. Thiess92 A. 922 (Md. 1914)
  2. Dicus v. Dicus101 A. 697 (Md. 1917)
  3. Bowersox v. Bowersox146 A. 266 (Md. 1929)
  4. Crane v. Crane97 A. 535 (Md. 1916)
  5. McCleary v. McCleary118 A. 133 (Md. 1922)
  6. Roeder v. Roeder185 A. 458 (Md. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Roeder v. Roeder185 A. 458 (Md. 1936)
  2. Bowersox v. Bowersox146 A. 266 (Md. 1929)
  3. McCleary v. McCleary118 A. 133 (Md. 1922)
  4. Dicus v. Dicus101 A. 697 (Md. 1917)
  5. Crane v. Crane97 A. 535 (Md. 1916)
  6. Thiess v. Thiess92 A. 922 (Md. 1914)

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