Case ID: pa-super_80/html/0285-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Spear v. Spear, Appellant.
    Practice, Superior Court — Appeals—Equal division of the judges —Divorce.
    
    Upon an appeal from a decree in divorce vsdiere the judges of the Superior Court who heard the appeal are equally divided, on the questions presented, the decree of the lower court will be affirmed.
    Argued October 19, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 227, Oct. T., 1922, by respondent, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1919, No. 183, granting a divorce a mensa et thoro in the case of Helen M. Spear v. James Spear, Jr.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Libel in divorce. Before Rogers, J.
    Libels were filed by the wife against her husband and by the husband against his wife, in different1 courts. In both cases the ground upon which divorce was sought was adultery. The suit of the husband was transferred to C. P. No. 2, where the wife’s suit had been filed. Both suits were referred to William C. Wilson, Esq., as master, who found against the wife upon her libel on the ground that she had failed to establish the proof of residence necessary to create jurisdiction in the court; and also found against the husband upon his suit for the reason that the proofs advanced were not sufficient to support a decree. The court sustained exceptions filed by the wife and disapproved the report of the master therein and found that jurisdiction had been established and that adultery of the husband had been proved. Exceptions filed for the husband were dismissed.
    November 23, 1922:
    A decree was entered divorcing the wife a mensa et thoro. The husband, respondent, appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were the decree and the various rulings upon exceptions and the finding of the court.
    
      Henry J. Scott, and with him Fierce Archer, Jr., for appellant.
    
      Cornelius Haggerty, Jr., for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The six judges who heard this appeal agree that the court below had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter; they are equally divided on questions arising out of the charges and countercharges of adultery ; accordingly the decree is affirmed.