U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1950

Reilly v. Reilly

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 24, 1950 · Clark, Proctor, Bazelon

182 F.2d 108; 86 U.S. App. D.C. 345; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2758 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington,- D. C. , for appellant. Mr. William E. Owen, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Holcomb v. Holcomb (D.C. Cir. 1954)
Tendrich v. Tendrich (D.C. Cir. 1951)
Mumma v. Mumma (D.C. 1971)
Tolson v. Tolson (Mont. 1965)
Posnick v. Posnick (D.C. 1960)
Hipp v. Hipp (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)
Travis v. Benson (D.C. 1976)
Lyons v. Lyons (D.C. 1972)
Randall E. Sebold, Sr. v. Irene H. Sebold (D.C. Cir. 1971)
Ridgely v. Ridgely (D.C. 1963)
Erma Hogan v. John R. Hogan (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Harriett F. Murphy v. Simon J. Murphy (D.C. Cir. 1955)
David Posnick, Bonat's Cafe, Incorporated v. Ethel Posnick, Ethel Posnick v. David Posnick, Bonat's Cafe, Incorporated (D.C. Cir. 1955)
Wheeler v. Wheeler (D.C. Cir. 1951)
Keleher v. Keleher (Three Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1951)
Hemily v. Hemily (D.C. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Consideration of this appeal leads to the following conclusions:

The evidence was sufficient to support the granting of a limited divorce for cruelty in favor of appellee.

The court had jurisdiction under its general equity powers to adjudicate and settle a dispute between the parties concerning their respective rights in funds and property which had been acquired by them during marriage, or incident thereto. 11 D. C.Code (1940) § 325; Baxt v. Baxt, 1946, 320 Mass. 762, 70 N.E.2d 799; Novick v. Novick, 1937, 299 Mass. 15, 11 N.E.2d 481; Gibbons v. Gibbons, 1936, 296 Mass. 89, 4 N.E.2d 1019.

Title 16, § 409, District of Columbia Code (1940) does not apply. Its provision for apportionment relates only to property in which a tenancy, joint or by entireties, dissolves by operation of the aforegoing statute through a decree for absolute divorce or nullity of marriage.

*109 In this case, agreeably to rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the general equity powers of the court were invoked by joining in a single action prayers for a limited divorce and for adjudication of an existing dispute between the parties concerning property rights. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 1942, 311 Mass. 709, 42 N.E.2d 838; Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 1940, 373 Ill. 352, 26 N.E.2d 108, certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 651, 61 S.Ct. 22, 85 L.Ed. 417; Cohagan v. Cohagan, 1920, 294 Ill. 439, 128 N.E. 494. See Note, 93 A.L.R. 327.

The judgment is

Affirmed. •

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.