Anderson v. Anderson, 9977.
| Citation | 84 US App. DC 231,172 F.2d 280 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 9977.,9977. |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Cornelius H. Doherty, of Washington, D. C., submitted on the brief for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant (the wife) who was plaintiff below, filed suit for annulment of her marriage to defendant appellee on the ground that she had never been legally married to him. The record showed that appellant had married one Ralph Faulkner in 1941. In January, 1945, acting on advice of counsel, as she testified (which testimony was not controverted), appellant procured what purported to be a divorce in Chihuahua, Republic of Mexico. Believing this Mexican divorce to be valid, she married appellee in February, 1945. In March, 1946, appellant was advised by her present counsel that the Mexican divorce was totally invalid. Since March 15, 1946, appellant and appellee have not lived together as man and wife. Appellee did not appear in court. An attorney appointed by the court to represent him made an affidavit that he had written appellee at his last known address and had been unable to elicit any response from him. Later the same attorney filed a "counter-claim" alleging substantially the same facts as those alleged by appellant and praying substantially the same relief, that is, that the marriage between appellant and appellee "be declared null and void." The trial court made findings of fact substantially in accordance with the foregoing statement and conclusions of law to the effect that appellant had failed to show good faith and was not entitled to an annulment and dismissing appellee's counterclaim for failure to appear personally.
We find nothing in the record to justify this action of the trial court. The testimony of appellant was uncontradicted. She testified that she had obtained the Mexican divorce on advice of counsel believing that it was legal and that she was acting in good faith. She testified further that she married appellee in good faith believing that she had been properly and legally divorced from her former husband, and that when advised by different counsel that the Mexican divorce was illegal, she had promptly ceased to live with appellee in the marital relationship.
That the Mexican divorce was totally null and void is palpable on the face of the record. App...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Butler
...He lived in New York until May 1962 when he returned to his apartment in Brazil which he still maintained. 5. Anderson v. Anderson, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 172 F.2d 280 (1949); Garman v. Garman, 70 App.D.C. 4, 102 F.2d 272, 122 A.L.R. 1317 (1939); Sears v. Sears, D.C.Mun.App., 166 A.2d 748, 74......
-
Sears v. Sears
...commenced, and invalidly maintained, discord between the parties entered the picture." There is an implication in Anderson v. Anderson, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 172 F.2d 280, that one who obtains a Mexican mail order divorce and thereafter remarries, may have the second marriage annulled only o......
-
Clagett v. King
...its validity in a divorce action here in which the litigants were the same spouses This decision was followed by Anderson v. Anderson, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 172 F.2d 280 (1949), where again taking the view that a Mexican mail order divorce was void, the court granted an annulment to the wife......
-
Rosenbaum V. Rosenbaum
...thereto was ever in that country or the responding party had improper or no notice of the proceedings there. Anderson v. Anderson, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 231, 172 F.2d 280 (1949). Here the facts are different. Both parties to the questioned divorced had resided in Mexico and the husband was still......