Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Wash. 423

Johnsen v. Johnsen

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1914

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1914-03-09

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Smith, J., entered March 18, 1913, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for divorce.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Modified · Decided 1914-03-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1951

11 state decisions

4019141920193019401950decided

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 →

¶1On Petition for Rehearing.

Gose, J.

¶2We said in the opinion heretofore filed in this case that the record shows that the plaintiff had been three times married and divorced prior to her marriage with the defendant. In the petition for rehearing, counsel for the plaintiff say:

“The real ground, however, on which this court decided this matter was a statement by this court that the respondent had prior to the marriage in question here been married and divorced three times prior thereto. It is fundamental *428that proof of facts is required. There was no proof whatever on this point.”

¶3Again, counsel say: “The court made the rights of respondent turn upon a point upon which there was absolutely no proof.” Pending the trial and probably in answer to the plaintiff’s application for suit money, the defendant made an affidavit in which he stated:

“At the time I married the plaintiff she had been married and divorced four times, and had lived all over the world. Her first matrimonial venture was in Australia; the second in Yukon Territory; the third in British Columbia. But the names and addresses of these parties I only know by hearsay. All this I learned after our marriage.”

¶4This affidavit was admitted in evidence upon the offer of plaintiff’s counsel, and it appears in the record and is referred to in the court’s certificate as Plaintiff’s Exhibit D. If counsel had familiarized themselves with the record before making these sweeping statements in the petition for rehearing, the court would have been relieved of the burden of reexamining it. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Crow, C. J., Ellis, Chadwick, and Main, JJ., concur.
/78/wash/423 · .json · Public domain