Willingham v. Willingham
Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The parties to this snit were married in the District of Columbia, and the abandonment alleged by the plaintiff in this suit for divorce occurred in that jurisdiction. The Maryland divorce statute provides: “No person shall be entitled to make application for a divorce, where the cauáes for divorce occurred out of this State, unless the party plaintiff or defendant shall have resided within this State for two years next preceding such application.” Code, art. 16, sec. 40. It is averred in the bill of complaint that the plaintiff has resided in St. Mary’s County, where the, bill was filed, for more than two years immediately prior to the institution of the suit, and that the defendant is a resident of the District of Columbia.
The bill was filed on August 23rd, 1930. It was dismissed by the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County on the ground that the evidence did not satisfactorily prove the plaintiff’s residence in this state for the statutory period before the suit. There was no defense in the case, which ■proceeded under a decree pro confesso. It was testified by the plaintiff that she had been a resident of St. Mary’s County for nearly four years, having lived there with her father, and that she is a voter in that county.
Her father testified that the plaintiff was living with him at Valley Lee in St. Mary’s County, and had resided there for more than two years. This testimony was taken before an examiner in November, 1930. The case having been presented to the court some months later, it passed an order stating that it was not satisfied with the testimony reported by the examiner, especially as to the plaintiff’s residence, and providing that additional testimony be taken in open court. At the time appointed by the order, two witnesses were produced on behalf of the plaintiff, and testified in effect that they had seen her at various times at a cottage owned by her father in St. Mary’s County, where he and his family spent the summer.
During the remainder 541 of the year they lived
This is a preview of Willingham v. Willingham. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.