Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Jesse Ellis PORTER, Appellant, v. Mary S. PORTER, Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1017 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Jesse Ellis PORTER, Appellant, v. Mary S. PORTER, Appellee
61 F.2d 1017·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Jesse Ellis PORTER, Appellant, v. Mary S. PORTER, Appellee.
No. 5573.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 7, 1932.
Decided Dec. 12, 1932.
Edwin C. Dutton and Hallock P. Long, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
S. MeComas Hawken and Raymond Neu-decker, both of Washington, D. C., for ap-pellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and VAN ORSDEL and GRONER, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The only question for our consideration in this case is whether the evidence was sufficient on which to predicate a decree for absolute divorce.
Appellant was sued for divorce and charged with adultery. Judge Bailey, who heard the case in the court below, decided the evidence was sufficient to establish the commission of the adultery. Hq saw the witnesses, and had full opportunity to observe their demeanor and judge of their veracity. Ordinarily this is enough, unless it appears that the judgment of the trial court is dearly wrong. Notwithstanding the rule, we have been at pains to weigh the evidence. If that on behalf of the plaintiff he taken as ti*ue, it may be coneeded that enough was proved to justify the decree. A careful consideration of it leaves much to be desired, hut, in the circumstances, we cannot, we think, invade the province of the trial judge and substitute our own opinion for his.
Affirmed.