From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Engelberth v. Engelberth

Court of Appeals of Maryland
May 21, 1930
150 A. 271 (Md. 1930)

Opinion

[No. 20, April Term, 1930.]

Decided May 21st, 1930.

Husband and Wife — Separate Maintenance — Evidence.

If Code, art. 35, sec. 4, requiring corroboration of the husband or wife's testimony, is applicable to a proceeding by a wife for separate maintenance, the corroboration need be but slight, the nature of the proceeding being such as to exclude the idea of collusion.

Decided May 21st, 1930.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. In Equity (GRASON, J.).

Bill by Mary Engelberth against William Engelberth for separate maintenance on the ground of cruelty. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

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

H. Courtenay Jenifer, with whom were Jenifer Jenifer on the brief, for the appellant.

Allan W. Rhynhart, with whom was William P. Cole, Jr., on the brief, for the appellee.


Unreported cases.


Summaries of

Engelberth v. Engelberth

Court of Appeals of Maryland
May 21, 1930
150 A. 271 (Md. 1930)
Case details for

Engelberth v. Engelberth

Case Details

Full title:WM. F. ENGELBERTH v . MARY ENGELBERTH

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: May 21, 1930

Citations

150 A. 271 (Md. 1930)
150 A. 271

Citing Cases

Schriver v. Schriver

The corroboration, however, need be but slight, the nature of the proceeding being such as to exclude the…

Roeder v. Roeder

There is no statement of the appellee that has not general or specific corroboration, and the allegations of…