Martin v. Martin

2 Citing cases

  1. Coleman v. Coleman

    369 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1963)   Cited 2 times
    In Coleman, the plaintiff sought to have a divorce decree, which had been entered against her some 16 years earlier, set aside on the grounds of fraud and improper service of process.

    Now if Gertrude Coleman had attacked this decree within a reasonable length of time and during the life of her husband, George Coleman, she would have been entitled to a hearing. In the case of Martin v. Martin, 200 Tenn. 196, 292 S.W.2d 9, this Court held, speaking through Justice Prewitt, that Chancery Court has the power and jurisdiction to set aside a divorce decree obtained by fraud. The main question before this Court is whether or not the Complainant acted soon enough and in good faith.

  2. Hill v. Hill

    326 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 2 times
    In Hill v. Hill, 326 S.W.2d 851 (Tenn.App. 1958), the plaintiff husband sought to have a divorce decree set aside because of fraud in procuring the divorce.

    The power and jurisdiction of the Chancery Court to set aside decrees obtained by fraud, even in cases of divorce is well recognized. Martin v. Martin, 1956, 200 Tenn. 196, 292 S.W.2d 9; Sturdavant v. Sturdavant, 1944, 28 Tenn. App. 273, 189 S.W.2d 410. However, in the present case, we think the original bill was properly dismissed for two reasons: