Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aspinwall v. Aspinwall

October 1916

LLOYD ASPINWALL, APPELLANT, V. ELIZABETH ROOSA ASPINWALL, RESPONDENT.


Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; R. C. Stoddard, Judge.

George Springmeyer, for Appellant.

Hoyt, Gibbons & French, for Respondent.

Brown & Belford, Amici Curiae.

By the Court, McCarran, J.:

This was an action in divorce. The complaint in the action set forth:

“That the defendant, Elizabeth Roosa Aspinwall, is now

[40 Nev. 55, Page 58]

living in and can be found in and is a bona fide resident of Washoe County, State of Nevada, and that plaintiff is now in said county; that substantial parts of this cause of action accrued in said Washoe County, State of Nevada.”

Two causes of action are set up in the complaint in furtherance of plaintiff's prayer for a decree of divorce. The first cause of action is that of extreme cruelty resulting in mental anguish to the plaintiff, and so forth. The second cause of action is that of adultery, and the complaint in that respect alleges, on information and belief, acts of adultery committed by defendant in the town of Chatham, Morris County, State of New Jersey, and in the City of New York, State of New York, and at 700 Wheeler Avenue, in the City of Reno, State of Nevada, and elsewhere in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada.

A demurrer to the complaint was interposed by defendant, respondent herein, in which, amoung other things, the demurrant asserted the want of jurisdiction of the district court.

The matter being submitted on demurrer, the same was sustained by the court for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff, appellant herein, declining to amend his complaint, an order was entered dismissing the action. From this order appeal is prosecuted to this court.

It will be observed that the complaint in this action makes no pretense at asserting either that the residence of the plaintiff was within this state, or that he was domiciled within the jurisdiction of the court. The plaintiff in the court below, appellant herein, sought to assert the jurisdictional prerequisite by alleging that the defendant, Elizabeth Roosa Aspinwall, “ is now living in and can be found in and is a bona fide resident of Washoe County, State of Nevada.”

Our statute applicable to the subject reads as follows:

“Divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be obtained, by complaint under oath, to the district court of the county in which the cause therefor shall have accrued, or in which the defendant shall reside or be found, or in which the plaintiff shall reside, if the latter be either the

[40 Nev. 55, Page 59]

county in which the parties last cohabited, or in which the plaintiff shall have resided six months before suit be brought, for the following causes. * * *” (Stats. 1915, p. 26.)

The appellant in this case relies upon the decision of this court in the case of Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 36 Nev. 494, 137 Pac. 824. In that case the wife, Gertrude ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.