Appeal of Seeley
| Decision Date | 31 March 1888 |
| Citation | 56 Conn. 202,14 A. 291 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of SEELEY. |
Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county.
PARDEE, J Upon her petition the appellant was divorced from Samuel A. 3eeley in January, 1874. During the pendency of the proceeding they entered" into a written agreement as follows: On the day of the decree of divorce, and after the decree had been passed, she received $500 from her husband, and at the same time executed and delivered to him a writing as follows: Samuel A. Seeley died on May 16, 1886, seized of real estate. On November 28, 1886, Sarah C. Seeley filed her petition in the probate court for the district of Fairfield, praying that dower might be set out to her in said real estate. On December 2, 1886, the probate court dismissed the petition. She appealed to the superior court. The superior court set aside the decree of the probate court, and declared the same to be null and void. The appellees appealed from the judgment of the superior court to this court for reasons as follows: (1) The court erred in finding upon the facts and admissions that the appellant was divorced without alimony. (2) Also in finding that upon such facts and admissions she was entitled to have dower set out to her in the real estate of the said Samuel A. Seeley. (3) Also in adjudging that the decree of the court of probate appealed from be set aside and declared null and void.
Inasmuch as the state rests upon the family, and is vitally interested in the permanency of a marriage relation once established, it, for the promotion of public welfare, and of private morals as well, makes itself a party to every marriage contract entered into within its jurisdiction, in this sense: that it will not permit the dissolution thereof by the other parties thereto. Its consent, in the form of a decree of its court passed after hearing in due process of law, is a prerequisite to a divorce. The law requires husband and wife, in their relation to each other, to perform certain duties, and refrain from committing certain wrongs. Taking note of human infirmity, and of certain failure of some to do, or to refrain from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Pendleton, In re, B113293
...cited cases on this point. Barham relies on Pereira v. Pereira, supra, 156 Cal. 1, 103 P. 488, which in turn relies on Seeley's Appeal (1888) 56 Conn. 202, 14 A. 291, where the court said: " 'Inasmuch as the state rests upon the family and is vitally interested in the permanency of a marria......
-
Palmer v. Palmer
...or for the procuring of a divorce, or tending to the like end, being contrary to the law and legal policy, is void." In Seeley's Appeal, 56 Conn. 202, 14 A. 291, it was "The law requires husband and wife, in their relation to each other, to perform certain duties and refrain from committing......
-
Maisch v. Maisch
...Speck v. Dausman, 7 Mo. App. 165; Muckenburg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 139, 92 Am. Dec. 345; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 89 Ill. 349; Seeley's Appeal, 56 Conn. 202, 14 Atl. 291. According to the law of South Dakota, the contract in suit appears to be valid. By that law husband and wife may contract with......
-
Giddings et al. v. Giddings et al.
...23, citing in note 17 to the point of the invalidity of a property settlement: Beard v. Beard, 65 Cal. 354, 4 P. 229; Appeal of Seeley, 56 Conn. 202, 14 Atl. 291; Ehlers v. Ehlers, 259 Ill. App. 142; Fredricks v. Sault, 19 Ind. App. 604, 49 N.E. 909; Taylor v. Ashe, 284 Mass. 182, 187 N.E. ......