Baldwin v. Baldwin

Citation151 Fla. 341,9 So.2d 717
PartiesBALDWIN v. BALDWIN.
Decision Date25 September 1942
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Morrow & Fulton, of West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

E. M Baynes, of West Palm Beach, for respondent.

BUFORD, Justice.

On petition for certiorari we review order entered on motion to dismiss for want of sufficient allegations dismissing bill of complaint with leave to amend in a suit for divorce.

The bill alleges inter alia, that the parties are over the age of twenty-one years, are residents of Florida, were married in Atlanta Georgia, on December 17, 1924; that one daughter, who was twelve years of age at date of institution of suit, was born to this union and that the parties lived together as husband and wife until the month of June, 1941.

The bill also avers:

'From the time the said parties were married until the year 1939, they were very happily married. During said period of time the defendant was a model husband and father, apparently devoted to his wife and child, spending practically all of his leisure time in their company in and around the home; that during such period of time, the defendant seemed to have no other interests than his work and his family. He spent considerable time working in his yard with plants and shrubs and otherwise enhancing the beauty and comfort of his home. However, the defendant, who is a physician and medical doctor, had during the year 1939 employed in his office in the Comeau Building in West Palm Beach, Florida, a nurse and receptionist by the name of Louise Hattaway; that during the latter part of 1939 the defendant made it very apparent to the plaintiff by his conduct that he had more than a business interest in the said Louise Hattaway. The defendant suddenly lost all interest apparently in his wife and in his child, and lost all interest in his home. Friends and neighbors of the plaintiff began to tell her that they had seen the defendant and the said Louise Hattaway out together at various places in and around West Palm Beach, Florida, at all hours of the day and night. Plaintiff, however, refused to believe that the defendant had been unfaithful to her, and because of her great love and affection for the defendant, she gave him the benefit of every doubt.

'During the Christmas season of 1939, the plaintiff was given a very rare and beautiful orchid by a friend as a Christmas gift. She was very proud of the plant and displayed it with pride to her friends and guests who came into the house during the Christmas season, all of which the defendant knew, but notwithstanding this the defendant told the plaintiff that the said Louise Hattaway was going to a dance, and that he wanted the plaintiff to let her wear the orchid as a corsage. When the defendant insisted that the plaintiff surrender the orchid she did so reluctantly, stating that the defendant must tell said Louise Hattaway that the orchid was a present from Dr. and Mrs. Baldwin. The plaintiff at that time cautioned the defendant not to make the present as a gift from himself, because she stated that in doing so, he might be misjudged. Plaintiff at that time told the defendant that it was not proper for a doctor to give his nurse a corsage. The plaintiff felt that this cautionary remark, concerning the manner in which the orchid should be presented to the said Louise Hattaway, would warn the defendant that his attitude and conduct had put the plaintiff on notice that something was wrong, and hence cause him to mend his ways. However, it did not have the desired result, because in May of 1940, the defendant planned a trip to Atlanta, Georgia, to attend a medical meeting, and stated that he wished to take his vacation trip at the same time. At the last moment he advised the plaintiff that he intended to take the said Louise Hattaway along with the plaintiff and his daughter, and used as a pretense the statement that he wished the said Louise Hattaway to take a course in the operation of some sort of electrical machine that was to be taught at the convention, and promising further that he would dump the said Louise Hattaway on one of his cousins in Atlanta, and that they would not see her during their stay there. However, defendant and the said Louise Hattaway spent practically all of the time that they were in Atlanta, together, and the plaintiff was almost entirely ignored. The unquestioned interest of the defendant in the said Louise Hattaway and his flagrant unfaithfulness to the plaintiff crushed the plaintiff's heart and caused her intense pain and suffering, both in mind and body.

'The growing interest in the said Louise Hattaway by the defendant, and his growing indifference to the plaintiff and her child became so apparent that the plaintiff talked to the defendant about it and begged him on bended knee to give up this girl and to return his affections to his wife and his child. She constantly implored the defendant to discharge the said nurse from his office, and to discontinue seeing her. This he refused to do, stating that he intended to see her as often as he pleased. And later during the month of September, A. D. 1940, invited the said Louise Hattaway and her mother, Mrs. Hattaway, to accompany the defendant and the plaintiff to the movies on a Sunday evening. It had never been the policy of the plaintiff and the defendant to attend theaters on Sunday, which fact plaintiff called to the attention of the defendant, but he insisted and demanded that the plaintiff accompany them to the theatre, which she did reluctantly, and very much upset, nervously and otherwise.

'Plaintiff continued to implore the defendant to discharge the said Louise Hattaway and he finally agreed to do so after the winter season of 1940. On the evening of February 3, 1941, which was the birthday of the plaintiff, and on which occasion she was entertaining some of her friends for the evening, the defendant made a public statement stating that there had been domestic unpleasantness in his family for some time, but that he was soon making a change in his office and that everything then would be all right. However, months passed and there was no change in the attitude of the defendant towards his wife and child and in his conduct of them, but rather he continued to keep constant company with his office girl and instead of firing her, as he agreed to do, he increased her salary, and in addition thereto, during the month of July, 1940, he purchased a suit of furniture from the Palm Beach Mercantile Company and gave it to his office girl. And sometime later, made her a present of an automobile, all of which was unknown to the plaintiff, but which she has ascertained since that time.

'During the month of August, 1941, a group of friends had come to the home of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant agreed to accompany them to the theater. However, at the last moment, he stated that he could not go that he had some calls to make. His conduct was so suspicious that the plaintiff took the other friends to the picture show, and then she and one of her close friends got in an automobile and drove to the Yacht Club and parked nearby. In a few moments, the defendant drove up and parked his car and went into the Yacht Club. One hour and fifteen minutes later, he came out of the Yacht Club, got into his car and drove off. The plaintiff and her friend, in another automobile, followed him. North on Olive and then west on Dixie Highway and then north again. Just after passing the Good Samaritan Hospital, the plaintiff and her friend noticed a woman's head rise up out of the back seat and crawl up over into the front seat, and she saw the said Louise Hattaway and recognized her kissing the defendant, her husband. As the defendant and the said Louise Hattaway drove northward in their automobile they embraced each other constantly and exchanged kisses. The plaintiff and her friend followed the said car as far north on Dixie Highway in West Palm Beach as Forth-first Street and North Poinsettia Avenue. The plaintiff became so crashed in heart and sick in body that it was necessary for her and her friend to turn back. En route to their home, they stopped their automobile at a drug-store, where a druggist administered a sedative. Later in the evening at her home, it was necessary for the plaintiff to summon a physician, who came and treated her for nervous shock. When the defendant returned to his home late that evening, he found the physician there administering to his wife, the plaintiff, and asked: 'What is wrong?' He was advised that the plaintiff came home ill in a condition of shock. He immediately went to his bedroom and slept soundly the rest of the night, leaving the physician and the friend of the plaintiff to sit up with her and to administer to her needs. Later the plaintiff told the defendant of the things that she had seen, and demanded that the said Louise Hattaway be fired. Whereupon the defendant advised his wife that he was sending the said Louise Hattaway on a vacation. However, the said Louise Hattaway continued to visit the defendant constantly in his office, and to cap the climax, on Saturday, August 30th 1941, Mrs. Hattaway, the mother of the said Louise Hattaway, phoned the plaintiff and told her that Dr. Baldwin was desperately in love with Louise and that he was going to divorce the plaintiff and marry her daughter. During the month of September, 1941, the defendant advised the plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Berndt v. Department of Labor and Industries of State, 32549
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 28, 1954
    ...there is an interrelation between worry and bodily ills. The supreme court of Florida said in a divorce action, Baldwin v. Baldwin, 1942, 151 Fla, 341, 353, 9 So.2d 717, 721, that worry 'affects every vital organ and provably results in more mental and physical wrecks than any other one aff......
  • R--- v. M---, s. 8271
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 13, 1964
    ...498 (1947). The statutory provisions do vary considerably; they are summarized and compared 1959 Wash.U.L.Q. at 205.14 Baldwin v. Baldwin, 151 Fla. 341, 9 So.2d 717, 721; Craig v. Craig, 129 Iowa 192, 105 N.W. 446, 448, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 669; Farley v. Farley, 278 Mich. 361, 270 N.W. 711, 712-......
  • Reger v. Grimson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • September 6, 1966
    ...... See, e.g., Fla.Stat., § 52.12, F.S.A. (1965); Cal.Civ.Proc., § 396; Ohio Rev.Code Ann., § 1901.22(E) (Baldwin 1964).         Absent legislation compelling, or at least authorizing, a transfer of the case to the district court, we are of the opinion ......
  • Epstein v. Epstein
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 11, 1954
    ...to be ample to sustain a charge of extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce under the decisions of this court. Compare Baldwin v. Baldwin, 151 Fla. 341, 9 So.2d 717; Blue v. Blue, Fla., 66 So.2d 228; Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130, 163 So. 401; Walstrom v. Walstrom, 124 Fla. 366, 168 So. 532. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT