Gechter v. Gechter

• Decision Date: 25 March 1879
• Citation: Gechter v. Gechter, 51 Md. 187 (Md. 1879)
• Parties: JOHN GECHTER v. EVA MARIA GECHTER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

51 Md. 187

JOHN GECHTER v. EVA MARIA GECHTER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 1879

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J. MILLER, ALVEY and ROBINSON, J., for the appellant, and submitted for the appellee.

M Star Weil, for the appellant.

H Tillard Smith and Daniel Ratcliffe, for the appellee.

ROBINSON J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The parties in this appeal were divorced a mensa et thoro, by a decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, passed in January, 1878, which decree was duly enrolled.

At the following term, a petition was filed by the appellee, praying the Court to vacate the enrollment of the decree, on the ground of fraud and surprise, for leave to appear and answer the bill of complaint, and to enjoin the appellant from disposing of his property pending the litigation.

The appellant in his answer denies under oath, all the allegations set forth in the petition, and prays that the same be dismissed, and the injunction granted upon it be dissolved.

The petition alleges that on the 3rd of October, 1877, she left this country for Germany, with the consent of her husband for the purpose of receiving a small legacy bequeathed to her by her father, that the day before her departure a person representing himself as a deputy sheriff, read to her a paper, which owing to her imperfect knowledge of the English language, she was unable to understand--that she asked her husband what it meant, and he told her that it did not amount to anything.

That after transacting her business in Germany, she returned to this country, and upon her arrival here, she was surprised to find that a divorce had been obtained by her husband during her absence, that she had no previous knowledge or intimation of any kind, that proceedings to that end had been instituted against her, and that she had always conducted herself in a proper and becoming manner as a wife &c.

The record shows that an interlocutory decree was passed for want of an appearance on the part of the petitioner, and under it an ex parte commission was issued to take testimony.

Assuming these averments to be true, they show not only that the decree divorcing the parties was procured by fraud, but that it was also a surprise to the appellee; and the power of the Court to vacate it upon these grounds cannot, since ...