Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

182 F.2d 108

Docket No. 10332.

Reilly v. Reilly

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 10,. 1950.

Decided April 24, 1950.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1950-04-24

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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. [Cases cited.]””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Holcomb v. Holcomb, Tolson v. Tolson

“The [trial] 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. [Reilly v. Reilly, 86 U.S. App.D.C. 345, 182 F.2d 108 , cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865 , 71 S.Ct. 90 , 95 L.Ed. 632 (1950) (citations omitted).]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hemily v. Hemily

Relies on Gibbons v. Gibbons · MacLennan v. MacLennan · Camarato v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1950-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 1979 · most notably Wheeler v. Wheeler (1951), Holcomb v. Holcomb (1954)

40 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

430195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington,- D. C. , for appellant. Mr. William E. Owen, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

¶2Mr. John L. Ingoldsby, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

¶3Before CLARK, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Consideration of this appeal leads to the following conclusions:

¶6The evidence was sufficient to support the granting of a limited divorce for cruelty in favor of appellee.

¶7The 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.

¶8Title 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.

¶9*109In 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.

¶10The judgment is

¶11Affirmed. •

/182/f2d/108 · .json · Public domain