Hoffman v. Hoffman

• Citation: 30 Pa. 417
• Parties: Hoffman versus Hoffman.
• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 417

30 Pa. 417

Hoffman versus Hoffman.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

APPEAL from the Common Pleas of Lehigh county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. D. Stiles, for the appellant.

Moore and Bridges, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by THOMPSON, J.

It advances not the morals or merits of society, to treat lightly or loosely the obligation of the matrimonial contract. That there are constantly recurring causes for its dissolution, is to be regretted; but being recognised by law, we are to take it that the true philosophy of life, the ends of justice, and the interests of society, are best promoted by allowing the dissolution for such recognised causes. Courts, however, ought to be careful to see that all the requirements of the law, in such proceedings, be complied with, both as to form and substance, so that divorces may never be obtained through "levity or by collusion."

We notice, although not among the assignment of errors, that the libel of the complainant charges that the respondent "wilfully and maliciously obtained the said marriage (with the libellant) fraudulently, and with force and coercion; and that in order to obtain the said marriage, the said Amanda wilfully and knowingly made false representations to your libellant and his friends, which said false representations, your libellant not knowing them to be false, induced the said libellant to enter into the bonds of matrimony with the respondent." The Act of Assembly of the 13th March 1815, which regulates the mode of proceeding in such cases, authorizes the party injured to exhibit his or her complaint to the next Court of Common Pleas, "setting forth particularly and specially" the causes thereof. It will be seen that this requirement has been entirely disregarded in this case. Nor was the defect attempted to be cured by serving and filing a specification of the facts intended to be proved, which, under the authority of Steele v. Steele, 1 Dall. 409, might perhaps still be permitted by the courts. Neither the nature of the force employed, nor the kind of fraud practised, or in what consisted the false representations, is disclosed or hinted at in the libel. These things constituted the libellant's cause of complaint, and should have been "particularly and specially set forth" in obedience to the requirements of the act. Nothing but the most general allegations are made, and the respondent might in vain essay to prepare to vindicate herself from such charges, either on a traverse or hearing; she was liable to be assailed from the cover of such masked batteries from quarters least expected, and where danger could not be anticipated. In the case of Garrat v. Garrat, 4 Yeates 244, which was a case of divorce, Mr. Justice YEATES on this point says, "If these names — the particeps — are really unknown, the times, places, and attendant circumstances should be contained in the specification, so as to give the party charged a fair opportunity of defence against the accusation. Failing therein, I think the complainant should be precluded from giving particular instances in evidence on the trial, on a general charge." The same doctrine is held in Steele v. Steele, 1 Dall. 409, already cited; and Light v. Light, 17 S. & R. 273. It is the most important element in the administration of justice, that the accused shall have notice of what he is to answer; and should a looseness prevail to the extent exhibited by the libel in this case, it would go far to sanction a disregard of this important principle. The libel...