Case ID: pa-super_188/html/0447-01.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

Pingor, Appellant, v. Pingor.
    
      March 18, 1959:
    Argued December 8, 1958.
    Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Gunti-ier, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
    
      W. J. Kreneewics, for appellant.
    Burke, Bowe, Dolbin & Heffner, for appellee, submitted a brief.
   Opinion

Per Curiam,

In the disposition of this appeal we find ourselves in agreement with the lower court. The court well might have stressed other pertinent facts which support the conclusion that the husband here was not excluded from the marital home but that he separated from his wife voluntarily in 1951, as he had done on at least two other occasions in 1947 and 1949. For example, from his insistence on a split-up of a joint bank account in 1946, it is a fair inference under the circumstances that he even then contemplated separating from his wife. The lower court however adequately disposed of the case. Accordingly the order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Curran, reported in 16 Pa. D. & C. 2d 258.