English Translation

10. Jahrgang 1940 Issue 40] Jurisdiction 1679 Note 3 at the end, that the statement on predominantly declared now in a case like the present one the debt of the one part of a request not Kl. only in the Berjnst. "explicitly, on determination of the dependent; even if only one application for co-indebted overriding debts of the Befl. It seems to me (similar to adultery) that the appointment of an overriding fault "except if the party to the action should be exclusively restricted as an unlawful relationship according to § 49 of the German Marriage Act". However, the RG asserts that the legally permissible declaration was to be made (22 April 1940: DR. In 1940, 1054) it was promised that it would be necessary to waive the question of culpability only on the basis of one of the claims in so far as this request for divorce had to be resolved by the parties; only in the event of the fault the guilt of Kl. i. S. of § 60 para. 2 Sas 2 outweighed the mutual debt in accordance with § 60 Abf. 2 of the weighs. In the absence of a special declaration of limitation on the part of the spouse or other spouse, where such an express declaration of restriction is necessary, and the discussion does not prejudge the circumstances of one or other of the two spouses, it shall be extended to include the grounds for divorce which, for reasons of fault, the court has determined according to the clear wording of the provision that all circumstances must be taken into account. However, the R.G. does not want to say that the question of that part has to be pronounced, whose marital misconduct of the majority of the fault is always too much more serious by its own motion than that of the other husband. For it is to be solved, but it has only wanted to extrude, that it does not demand here, as e.g. in the third paragraph according to §60 paragraph 2 in general, no special supplement to § 60, a special supplement. It submits it to the Court of First Instance on the basis of the statement of the overriding fault that it would need more than in the divorce suit, which was granted on the grounds of fault, and that, if not the contrary will of the parties is disclosed in the event of a counterclaim or a co-debt application, it is now ex officio for the purpose of discussing the claim. In this way, it must also include circumstances which did not constitute grounds for divorce, particularly in the opposite direction, for the exceptional case of a deviating from fault. It would also contradict the fundamentals of the express declaration of the party's will by the new marital law, the relationship between two procedural declaration that the determination of superior spouses whose marriage is incurably broken is waived by roll-up of fault. not necessarily necessary for the decision of a due act- RA. Dr. v. Scanzoni, Munich. The Senate therefore had no reason to enter into the debate on the facts of the case, but had to, after Kl. ** 13. RG. — §§ 93, 1030, 1090, 1093, 2170 BGB. One had stated that it was only in the form of a limited personal service, that both parties were not ordered to be used as a service to the disintegration of the marriage, that the judgment of the first Nechtszug was limited to the determination of the overriding right to use the property. (Ng., 27. Zivsen., Urt. v. 17. Fuli 1940, 27 U 1346/40.) that essential elements of a basic law cannot be the object of special rights. — In the case of the grant remark: The decision taken by Diefer is, as a result of a bequest, must prove to the mind that it is a restitution. It is striking, however, that they—as well as their Stüzungs- Der Kl. and the first accused find Gefchwister. Their quotation RG.: DR.1940, 1054 and Vo1kmar, Note 3 1. Abs. Parents had made joint wills. In diefen zu § 60 HabitG. — §§ 614, 617, 622 3PO. If they did not mention each other, they had settled each other into heirs and had continued to believe, although precisely these rules of measurement were correct here, that after the death of the long-lived one the estate should contain. to the children should fall, that the son the ground of the house by §617 ZpO. The negotiating class, market 32, will be allowed to take over to the lap tare that the reason only in the sense of party disposition, nichi son of enjoyment at the shop to the right of the house entrance also in the meaning of the party initiative is excluded and on the second floor, the daughter of enjoyment on the (Jón as, Komm., note I para. 2 to § 617; Borbem. III 4 store left and on first floor be bequeathed. An Ofjizialprocedure therefore takes place only in the case of the death of the father the mother with the two limitations and according to the conditions of § 622. Contracts the following contents: It transferred to them shop-- So if the court according to new law, though from direction and workshop of their buechjenmacherei as well as the office order the reception of evidence and inventory of goods (contracts v. 30 April 1935 and 18 Febr. after hearing the parties, also such facts berüd- 1937). It undertook to allow the first defendant to consider the market 32, which were not put forward by the parties to transfer lying house ground (profit of 3 March, after all, to the parties in 1937). However, it is not yet bound to the transfer of ownership claims. It may come to e.g... the acquirer folds property charges in the amount of asserting unlawful relationships of the claim to 28750 RM, moreover 3000 GM. Basic of a lover though the claim and the witness about marriage guilt for the Kl. and 15 000 GM. In order to obtain a true picture of ter (contract of 23 April 1937). to obtain the extent of marriage, illegality), but never to go beyond the request to divorce the marriage pursuant to § 49 of the MarriageG. (not the Kl. in this case inter alia § 47). Thus, the party's applications are limited because of the fact that he was in the will of 24 February 1937. He had requested to state that he had a right to grant the enjoyment of the service to Kl. by § 614 ZPO. In the second instance, he requested that the first defendant also be informed of the divorce proceedings e.g. to transfer to the right of residence on the second floor and to an action for annulment free of charge, or, on the other hand, to combine two actions in the alternative, to convict debt applications at the store; secondly, to measure or to omit or to mitigate them. This is also possible in the alternative, the determination of a personal, not above all the Berjnst.. Here only the light right of use on the second floor and shop applies. Limitation of § 626 ZPO. in the case of one according to The OLG. has recognized to III of his sentence to the conviction of the court obvious abduction: "It is further established that the Kl. against the intention. Declare to 1 a claim to grant the niece's bride It is therefore exclusively the party initiative over- at the shop to the right of the house entrance and at the second whether e.g. the Kl., if he seeks the divorce, is entitled to Stodwerk of the property market 32." in the presence of several divorce grounds over all RG. In the light of the above, the judgment of the Court of First Instance, or only of one of them, seeks to bring about a judicial decision (Volkmar, note 3, if the Rev., against the finding of the claim, paragraph 2 to §622, p. 417).