Case ID: serg-rawl_5/html/0374-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrews against Andrews.
    
      Tuesday, December 20.
    An appeal to the Supreme Court lies from a decree for a divorce made by the Court of Common Pleas in pursuance of a verdict.
    The Supreme Court will not, on such appeal, re-try the matters of fact decided by the jury in the COurt below.
    Appeal.
    THIS 'was an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas °f Philadelphia county, upon a libel by John Andrews against his wife, fora divorce. Issue was ioined in the o * v Court below, upon the charge of adultery having been committed by the defendant, and on the defendant’s recrimination of adultery by the libellant, and a verdict was found for the defendant. A decree was made accordingly.
    
      Norris, for the defendant,
    now moved to strike off the apand referred to the 2d, 3d, 8th, and 13th sections of act of 13th March, 1815. Purd. Dig. 128.
    Per Curiam. The appeal certainly lies. But whether the Court will try over again those facts which have been tried by jury, is another question.
    
      J. JR. Ingersoll, for the plaintiff,
    then moved that this cause should be set down for trial at the next Nisi Prius. In Miller v. Miller,
      
       it is decided, that a writ of error does not lie in a case of this kind: and it is said by the Court, that “ on an appeal, the matter is taken up de novo, and new evidence is admitted in the superior Court, who may make such decree, as under all circumstances appears proper.” The 13th section of the act of 13th March, 1815, provides, that the appeal “ shall be prosecuted in the usual manner.” The act of 13th April, 1791, sect. 18. Purd. Dig. 574, expressly provides in case of an appeal from the Register’s Court, that facts found by verdict in the Court of Common Pleas, “ shall not be re-examined on appeal.” There are no such words in the act of 13th March, 1815. He cited, United States v. Onson.
    
    
      
       3 Binn. 30.
    
    
      
      
         1 Gal. 5.
      
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered..by

Tilghman C. J.

This is an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Philadelphia, in a suit for divorce, instituted by John Andrewsagainst Sylvana his wife. Issue was joined upon matters of fact, and a verdict given for the defendant; whereupon the Court decreed in favour of the defendant, and the husband appealed to this Court. The act of 13th March, 1815, under which the proy ceedings in this case were had, gives an appeal to this Court, and directs that the appeal shall be prosecuted in the usual manner. We are of opinion, that it has not been usual to re-try in this Court, matters of fact which have been decided by a jury in the Court below; and therefore we must take for granted, that the finding of the jury was true. That being the case, there appears no cause for impeaching the decree of the Court of Common Pleas, and consequently we are of opinion, that it should be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.