Frey v. Frey, 4958.

• Citation: 41 F.2d 566
• Decision Date: 02 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 4958.,4958.
• Parties: FREY v. FREY.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

41 F.2d 566 (1930)

FREY v. FREY.

No. 4958.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Argued May 6, 1930.

Decided June 2, 1930.

T. L. Jeffords, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Argyle Mackey, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

Appeal from an interlocutory order granting alimony pendente lite in a suit for divorce from bed and board.

The record discloses that on March 8, 1929, the appellee as plaintiff below filed a bill of complaint against appellant as defendant, wherein she alleged that she was lawfully married to appellant at Baltimore, Md., on March 7, 1927, and had ever since lived with him in the District of Columbia as his wife; that she had always conducted herself as a faithful and dutiful wife; that from May 7, 1927, to March 4, 1929, appellant had been guilty of extreme cruelty by the use of indecent and insulting language toward her and by violent physical assaults upon her; that appellant had failed and refused to provide for her as his wife, although well able to do so, and had finally driven her from his home and forbidden her to return to it. She prayed for a divorce from bed and board, for alimony, and for suit money and counsel fees.

Appellant filed an answer to the bill, alleging that the marriage ceremony which appellee and appellant went through in Baltimore, Md., on March 7, 1927, was not a lawful marriage, as both then well knew, because appellant had been previously married and his wife had secured a divorce from him on the ground of adultery, which deprived him of the right to marry again, and because appellee had been previously married and had secured a fraudulent divorce in a foreign jurisdiction by means of false representations as to her place of residence, which divorce was null and void, and appellee was not entitled to enter into a contract of marriage with appellant at the date of the ceremony at Baltimore or since. Appellant denied all charges of cruelty and failure to provide, and denied that appellee had conducted herself properly while the parties were living together following the ceremony at Baltimore. Appellant filed with his answer a number of affidavits and copies of records as evidence in support of his allegations.

Under Equity Rule 34 of the lower court, no reply was required to be filed by appellee with respect to the new or affirmative matter contained in the answer, which was deemed to be denied, and the cause stood at...