Case Name: Lafayette David Patrick vs. Fleta E. Patrick
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1918-02-04
Citations: 7 Boyce 75
Docket Number: Alias Divorce, No. 19; No. 53
Parties: Lafayette David Patrick vs. Fleta E. Patrick.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 75–76

Head Matter:
Lafayette David Patrick vs. Fleta E. Patrick.
Pleading—Withdrawal of Pleadings—Divorce Suits.
In a divorce case, the petition and the answer, when necessary, are the pleadings, and the court may, in its discretion, allow an answer to be withdrawn in order to raise objections to the petition; it not appearing that this course is being pursued for the purpose of delaying the hearing.
(February 4, 1918.)
Judges Conrad and Heisel sitting.
William S. Prickett for plaintiff.
Edward W. Cooch for defendant.
Superior Court, New Castle County,
January Term, 1918.
Alias Divorce, No. 19,
January Term, 1918;
No. 53,
November Term, 1917.
Action for divorce by Lafayette David Patrick against Fleta E. Patrick. Answer to the charge of adultery filed by defendant. On motion to withdraw answer, in order to make objections to the petition. Motion allowed.
The petition filed charged the defendant with specific acts of adultery with one T., at No. 427 East Third Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle and State of Delaware, at divers times during the months of June, July and August, 1917; also other acts of adultery with divers other men at times and places unknown to the petitioner. Early in the term, to which the summons was returnable, Mr. Cooch,, for defendant, filed an answer, and within two days thereafter asked leave of the court to withdraw the answer in order to raise objections to the petition. This application was opposed.

Opinion:
Per Curam:
We think; that petitions in divorce proceedings, and answers when necessary, are the pleadings in those cases, and we see no reason why the court should not, in its discretion, allow an answer to be withdrawn and other action taken. Of course, if it were apparent that this course was being pursued for the purpose of delaying the hearing of the case, that would be a matter for the court to pass upon, but that question is not raised in this case.
We think we should allow the answer to be withdrawn at this time.