From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Demarco v. Demarco

Court of Appeals of Maryland
May 21, 1930
150 A. 281 (Md. 1930)

Opinion

[No. 15, April Term, 1930.]

Decided May 21st, 1930.

Divorce — Abandonment.

Testimony by the wife that her husband's leaving her was not caused by her refusal to go with him to live with his parents, as alleged by him, was sufficiently corroborated by another's testimony that after the separation the husband said that he was through with it all and would not take his wife back.

Decided May 21st, 1930.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City (DUKE BOND, J.).

Bill by Lena Demarco v. Samuel Demarco. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The cause was argued before BOND, C.J., PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT, DIGGES, and SLOAN, JJ.

Charles Jackson, for the appellant.

Arthur R. Padgett, with whom was Edwin J. Wolf on the brief, for the appellee.


Unreported cases.


Summaries of

Demarco v. Demarco

Court of Appeals of Maryland
May 21, 1930
150 A. 281 (Md. 1930)
Case details for

Demarco v. Demarco

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL DEMARCO v . LENA DEMARCO

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: May 21, 1930

Citations

150 A. 281 (Md. 1930)
150 A. 281

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Richardson

This section of the code is clearly not a "corroboration" statute. Cf. Olson v. Olson, 47 Idaho 374, 276 P.…

Kelsey v. Kelsey

It is sufficient if it lends substantial support to the complainant's testimony as to material and…