Stewart v. Stewart.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1948 |
| Citation | 59 A.2d 706 |
| Parties | STEWART v. STEWART. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Waldo County.
Suit for divorce by Priscilla P. Stewart against Charles A. Stewart. Decree for the libelant, and the libelee brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Roy L. Fernald, of Winterport, for libellant.
Pilot & Collins, of Bangor, for libellee.
Argued before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, MURCHIE, TOMPKINS, FELLOWS and MURRAY, JJ.
The libelee's exceptions herein challenge the validity of a divorce decree on the dual grounds that the Justice who heard the case erred in refusing to dismiss the libel because of wrong venue and in granting the divorce on evidence which was not sufficient to establish cruel and abusive treatment.
Venue under the statute, R.S.1944, Chap. 153, Sec. 55, depends on residence; ‘A divorce * * * may be decreed in the county where either party resides at the commencement of proceedings * * *.’
The motion was urged by assertion that although the libelant was proved to have been physically present in the place alleged to be her residence in her libel at the time she signed it and for slightly more than a week prior thereto, there was no direct evidence that she intended to remain there ‘permanently, or for an indefinite period of time’ and that without such proof her presence would not constitute residence. Inhabitants of Warren v. Inhabitants of Thomaston, 43 Me. 406, 69 Am.Dec. 69. That the trier of fact made a finding on the point in her favor is implicit in the granting of the divorce.
Residence is a question of fact. Mather et al. v. Cunningham et al., 105 Me. 326, 74 A. 809, 29 L.R.A.,N.S., 761, 18 Ann.Cas. 692; Thorndike v. City of Boston, 1 Metc., Mass., 242. So also is the existence of cause for divorce, as is evidenced by a principle of general application, i. e. that factual decisions made by triers of fact will not be disturbed in appellate proceedings if supported by credible evidence. This principle was applied in the divorce field in Sweet v. Sweet, 119 Me. 81, 109 A. 379; Michels v. Michels, 120 Me. 395, 115 A. 161, 18 A.L.R. 570; Bond v. Bond, 127 Me. 117, 141 A. 833; and Alpert v. Alpert, 142 Me. 260, 49 A.2d 911.
It cannot be said that the record before us lacks credible evidence to support either finding. Libelant's allegation of her residence may be said to have the support of credible evidence in proof that she was paying board at the place where she was living....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Koucoules
...the province of the fact finder. Perkins v. Conary, 1972, Me., 295 A.2d 644; Garland v. Vigue, 1967, Me., 236 A.2d 324; Stewart v. Stewart, 1948, 143 Me. 406, 59 A.2d 706. In the present case, the conflicts in the testimony of the officers essentially relate to the exact time of various eve......
-
Hadley v. Hadley.
...proceedings if supported by credible evidence, is controlling in divorce proceedings. Alpert v. Alpert, Me., 49 A.2d 911; Stewart v. Stewart, Me., 59 A.2d 706. The issue here is not whether the record would support a decision of fact that the libellee was not legally responsible for conduct......
-
Kennon v. Kennon
...406, 11 A.2d 898; Heaton v. Heaton, 1940, 137 Me. 325, 14 A.2d 708; Alpert v. Alpert, 1946, 142 Me. 260, 49 A.2d 911; Stewart v. Stewart, 1948, 143 Me. 406, 59 A.2d 706. It is plain that the libelant takes nothing by his complaint that the decision was '* * * against the evidence and the pr......