Barnard v. Barnard
| Decision Date | 07 June 1954 |
| Citation | 331 Mass. 455,120 N.E.2d 187 |
| Parties | BARNARD v. BARNARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Barnard J. Lojko, Newburyport, for respondent.
George Karelitz, Haverhill, for petitioner.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is a petition brought in a Probate Court on September 8, 195o, under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 209, § 32, by a wife against her husband, alleging that he fails without just cause to furnish suitable support for her and has deserted her. After a hearing, the judge on October 29, 1953, found that the husband had deserted the wife and that for justifiable cause she is actually living apart from him, and ordered him to pay her $25 a week.
The judge found, and we think that there was evidence to support his finding, that the husband had no sufficient cause to justify his desertion of the wife. The only evidence of any support furnished the wife after the desertion was that she was sent $15 a week from the husband's office, and that evidence came only from the husband. Desertion, even without failure to support, authorized a decree in favor of the wife, under the statute. Farrell v. Farrell, 262 Mass. 209, 159 N.E. 495.
On April 10, 1953, the husband left his wife and has not lived with her since. He brought a libel for divorce in the Probate Court for the county of Essex, which was dismissed without prejudice on May 27, 1953. The husband arrived at Las Vegas in Nevada on May 30, 1953, On July 13, 1953, he brought an action for divorce in a Nevada court, alleging extreme cruelty. The wife was served here, but did not appear. He obtained a decree of divorce on August 18, 1953, and immediately returned to the neighborhood of Newburyport, living across the State line in New Hampshire, from which place he travels every day to his place of business at Newburyport. The husband contends that the decree of the Probate Court is erroneous because the legal relation of husband and wife was terminated by the Nevada decree of divorce. It is clear that a petition for separate support cannot be maintained after a divorce. Welker v. Welker, 325 Mass. 738, 743, 92 N.E.2d 373; Garfi v. Garfi, 327 Mass. 122, 123, 97 N.E.2d 384.
The decisive question is whether the Nevada decree of divorce is valid, and its validity depends upon whether the husband acquired a domicil in Nevada. It is well settled that a State cannot validly grant a divorce unless one of the spouses is domiciled within its borders. Bergeron v. Bergeron, 287 Mass. 524, 528, 192 N.E. 86; Coe v. Coe, 316 Mass. 423, 426, 55 N.E.2d 702; Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 319 Mass. 568, 571, 66 N.E.2d 793; Coe v. Coe, 320 Mass. 295, 302, 69 N.E.2d 793; Heard v. Heard, 323 Mass. 357, 364, 82 N.E.2d 219; Shain v. Shain, 324 Mass. 603, 604, 88 N.E.2d 140; Royal v. Royal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madden v. Madden
...effect of terminating liability for support only if it is valid. Welker v. Welker, 325 Mass. 738, 743, 92 N.E.2d 373; Barnard v. Barnard, 331 Mass. 455, 457, 120 N.E.2d 187; RAGUCCI V. RAGUCCI, MASS., , 258 N.E.2D 28. GEORGIA CODE 1933,B § 30--107, as amended by Ga.Laws (1958) No. 385, § 1,......
-
Tierney v. Tierney
...1577; Royal v. Royal, 324 Mass. 613, 617, 87 N.E.2d 850; Fitzgerald v. Starratt, 330 Mass. 75, 78, 111 N.E.2d 682; Barnard v. Barnard, 331 Mass. 455, 120 N.E.2d 187. The statute of Maine, Rev.St.1944, c. 153, § 55, gave jurisdiction to the Superior Court for Androscoggin County, where Tiern......
-
Yorke v. Yorke
...returned to Massachusetts as soon as it was medically safe for her to do so following the birth of Mark. Contrast Barnard v. Barnard, 331 Mass. 455, 457, 120 N.E.2d 187 (1954), with Shain v. Shain, 324 Mass. 603, 606--607, 88 N.E.2d 143 We hold, therefore, that the Massachusetts Probate Cou......
-
Chiminiello v. Chiminiello
...70 S.Ct. 492, 94 L.Ed. 589 (1950). Compare Rubinstein v. Rubinstein, 319 Mass. 568, 569-575, 66 N.E.2d 793 (1946); Barnard v. Barnard, 331 Mass. 455, 120 N.E.2d 187 (1954). By reason of the divorce, the tenancy by the entirety held by Mary and Peter in the real estate in Quincy and Braintre......