| Mass. | May 29, 1952
JOSEPH La RAIA
vs.
PAULINE T. La RAIA.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.
Present: QUA, C.J., LUMMUS, RONAN, & SPALDING, JJ.
C. Sheldon Williams, for the libellant, submitted a brief.
No argument nor brief for the libellee.
LUMMUS, J.
This is a libel for divorce in a Probate Court on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. At the hearing on May 17, 1951, the libellant introduced evidence which the judge finds was sufficient to support a decree nisi. The libellee came into court at a continued hearing on May 24, 1951, and expressed a desire to contest the libel. On August 15, 1951, the libellee was permitted to file a late answer. On October 10, 1951, the libellant moved for the entry of a decree nisi for divorce, which the judge denied. On October 17, 1951, the libellant appealed.
The granting of a divorce is not discretionary. The judge has no right to postpone decision indefinitely, but *93 must grant the divorce if the libellant makes out a case entitling him to it. Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 225 Mass. 228" court="Mass." date_filed="1916-11-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/waterhouse-v-waterhouse-6433745?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6433745">225 Mass. 228. Reddington v. Reddington, 317 Mass. 760" court="Mass." date_filed="1945-03-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/reddington-v-reddington-6445114?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6445114">317 Mass. 760, 764. See also Mooney v. Mooney, 317 Mass. 433" court="Mass." date_filed="1944-12-30" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mooney-v-mooney-6445056?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6445056">317 Mass. 433. But in the instant case all that the judge did was to grant a further hearing to the libellee. That was within his power. Malcolm v. Malcolm, 257 Mass. 225" court="Mass." date_filed="1926-10-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/malcolm-v-malcolm-6437685?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6437685">257 Mass. 225. Lye v. Lye, 322 Mass. 155" court="Mass." date_filed="1947-12-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lye-v-lye-6445801?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6445801">322 Mass. 155. The power to reconsider a case resides in a court until final judgment or decree. Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597" court="Mass." date_filed="1940-09-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/peterson-v-hopson-6443693?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6443693">306 Mass. 597, 601-602. In this case no decree was ever entered, granting or denying a divorce. An appeal from a decree of a Probate Court is analogous to an appeal in equity. G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 215, § 9, as it appears after St. 1945, c. 469, § 1, and St. 1947, c. 360. No appeal except one from a final decree can come presently to this court. Lynde v. Vose, 326 Mass. 621" court="Mass." date_filed="1951-01-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lynde-v-vose-2032996?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2032996">326 Mass. 621, 622. Slater v. Munroe, 313 Mass. 538" court="Mass." date_filed="1943-04-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/slater-v-munroe-6444532?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6444532">313 Mass. 538, 540. Clark v. Clark, 325 Mass. 760" court="Mass." date_filed="1950-02-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/degiso-v-metropolitan-transit-authority-6446326?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6446326">325 Mass. 760.
Appeal dismissed.