Holland v. Holland (Mass. 1806). · Go Syfert
Search
Holland v. Holland (Mass. 1806). Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crane v. Hardy, 1 Mich. 56 (1848)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 284 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Harrison v. Stipp, 8 Blackf. 455 (Ind. 1847).published
    Under similar statutory provisions, both these points have been so decided in Massachusetts, and, we think, correctly. 2 Mass. R. 154 . — 8 id. 284. — 14 id. 143. — 17 id. 299.— 2 Pick. 331 . — 12 id. 47.
At page 299 Requirement for debtor opportunity to choose appraiser1 citing case
  • Crane v. Hardy, 1 Mich. 56 (1848).published
    It has been held under those statutes, that it must appear by the sheriff’s return that the debtor had an opportunity to choose an appraiser. 2 Mass. 154 ; 8 id. 284: 17 id. 299; 12 Pickering 47; 3 N. H.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hannah Holland, Libellant, versus Richard Holland
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Oct 15, 1806.
Published opinion
Published
By the Court.

The rule is established by uniform practice that the confession of the party, unsupported by other evidence, is not sufficient to ground a divorce upon. To vary from this rule would be opening a door for the collusion of parties, and be attended with consequences very mischievous to society. If the confession of either party was sufficient evidence to obtain a divorce a vinculo, a contract of marriage would be at the will of both the parties. (a)

The divorce was refused.

Baxter vs. Baxter, 1 Mass. Rep. 346. — Betts vs. Betts, 1 Johns. Ch. R. 197.