Fisher v. Fisher
Decision Date | 18 June 1902 |
Citation | 52 A. 898,95 Md. 314 |
Parties | FISHER v. FISHER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city; Henry Stockbridge Judge.
Bill for divorce by Louisa Fisher against William L. Fisher. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BOYD, PAGE, SCHMUCKER, and JONES, JJ.
Oliver C. Warfield, for appellant.
Ruddell & Smith, for appellee.
The appellant in this case is seeking a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from her husband, the appellee. She charges in her bill that he has been guilty of adultery since the 1st day of January, 1901, with divers women, whose names are unknown to her. The docket entries are not set out in the record, and it does not appear whether he was summoned, or appeared voluntarily without the service of subpoena. The bill was filed on the 9th day of November. The answer of the appellee was filed three days later. On the 14th of November issue was joined, and on the same day leave was granted to the appellant to take testimony. On the 5th day of December the testimony was taken, and returned to the court, and on the same day, by agreement of parties, the cause was "submitted for decree, and the 43d general equity rule" waived, and without argument was referred by the court to the auditor and master. The appellee in his answer admits all the averments of the bill except those contained in the third and fourth paragraphs, to the effect that the appellant "has always been" a chaste wife, and that "since the 1st day of January 1901, the appellee has been guilty of adultery," etc. As to these, "he neither admits nor denies," but "calls for strict proof thereof." All the testimony taken was on behalf of the appellant. None was offered by the appellee. The cross-examination of appellant's witness was brief, and its effect was merely to emphasize what has already been elicited. It is apparent, we think, from the facts we have just recited, that the learned judge below was fully justified in closely scrutinizing this proceeding when it came before him for his action, for the purpose of being assured there were not important facts, other than those that appeared in the return of the examiner, that should have been brought to his knowledge. Accordingly, having knowledge of a certain other case between parties of the same name, in which the bill and a cross bill for divorce had been dismissed, "upon the grounds that the parties were in pari delicto," the judge "sent for the solicitors in the present case, and in open court the said solicitors admitted to the court that the Louisa Fisher and William L. Fisher who are parties to this cause are the same persons who were parties to the antecedent case of Fisher vs. Fisher." He then dismissed the bill, and from the decree the appellant has taken this appeal.
With his decree the judge filed an opinion, a part of which is now here reproduced, viz.: The former proceedings thus referred to will be found reported in 93 Md. 299, 48 A. 833 (Fisher v. Fisher), and by reference to the case in the printed volume it will appear that the appellee in this case filed a bill against the appellant, charging adultery, and praying for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The appellant denied the charge, but presented counter charges of the same kind in a cross bill, in which she also asked for a divorce a vinculo. It was held in the court below and in this court that the testimony showed that both of the parties had been guilty of adultery, and for that reason neither was entitled to a divorce. So that, if the record of the antecedent proceedings had been laid before the judge in the regular manner, this case would have been one in which the wife, a proven adulteress herself, comes again into court, and prays for a divorce from her husband upon the ground that he had committed the same offense of which she also had been guilty. She would not, under such circumstances, most certainly, be coming into c...
To continue reading
Request your trial