Allen v. Allen
| Decision Date | 22 May 1900 |
| Citation | 73 Conn. 54,46 A. 242 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. ALLEN. BARBER v. BARBER. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Hartford county; Samuel C. Prentice, Judge.
Actions by Emily J. Allen against Moses D. Allen, and by George H. Barber against Belle Bemis Barber, for divorce. From judgments in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
These cases present but one question. The complaint in each case claims a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance. Upon the trial in each case the superior court admitted evidence respecting habits and practices of the defendant as to intemperance subsequent to the beginning of the action and up to the time of the trial, and in each case dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff in each case has appealed. The error assigned in the first case was that the court erred in admitting such evidence; "that the plaintiff's right to a divorce depends upon the facts as they existed prior to the time of the commencement of the action." In the second case the error is assigned in this way: "Because the superior court erred in admitting at the trial of said cause evidence as to the defendant's habits in respect to the use of intoxicating liquors, and her condition from such use, since the date of the complaint in said case."
Charles A. Safford, for appellant Allen. Arthur Perkins, for appellant Barber. Albert C. Bill and Joseph P. Turtle, for appellee Allen. Jacob P. Goodhart, for appellee Barber.
ANDREWS, C. J. (after stating the facts.)Marriage is that ceremony or process by which the relationship of husband and wife is constituted. The consent of the parties is everywhere deemed an essential condition to the forming of this relation. To this extent, it is a contract But, when the relation is constituted, then all its incidents, as well as the rights and duties of the parties resulting from the relation, are absolutely fixed by law. Hence, after a marriage is entered into, the relation becomes a status, and is no longer one resting merely on contract it is the relation fixed by law, in which the married parties stand to each other, towards all other persons, and to the state. Anu it is a relation from which the persons cannot separate themselves by their own agreement or by their own misconduct This status can only be dissolved between living parties by the assent of the state, which is ordinarily indicated by the judgment of a competent court. When an attempt is made, through the courts, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mazzei v. Cantales
...There is nothing in chapter 367 which furnishes support for the plaintiff's claim. Marriage does create a status. Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 55, 46 A. 242, 49 L.R.A., 142. It is this status, coupled with the residential and domiciliary qualifications prescribed by law, which furnishes the......
-
Hames v. Hames
...which, even at common law, are deemed essential to forming the relationship. Davis v. Davis,119 Conn. 194, 175 A. 574; Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 46 A. 242. Even a bigamous marriage may carry sufficient legal effect to sustain an action for annulment. Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152......
-
Catalano v. Catalano
...After the marriage, the relation between the Catalanos became a status, no longer resting merely on contract. Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 55, 46 A. 242, 49 L.R.A. 142. A contract of marriage is sui generis. 'It is simply introductory to the creation of a status, and what that status is the......
-
Casale v. Casale
...Appeal, 56 Conn. 202, 205, 14 A. 291. This does not mean that any married person has a vested right to a divorce. Allen v. Allen, 73 Conn. 54, 55, 46 A. 242, 49 L.R.A. 142. 'As the state favors marriages for the reasons stated, so the state does not favor divorces, and only permits a divorc......