Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 10 January 1871
• Citation: 22 Mich. 242
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Honoria Brown v. John Brown

22 Mich. 242

Honoria Brown v. John Brown

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 10, 1871

Heard January 7, 1871

Appeal in chancery from Ionia circuit.

The bill in this cause was filed by Honoria Brown in the circuit court for the county of Ionia, in chancery, against John Brown, for a limited divorce, on the ground tat he, being of sufficient ability to provide a suitable maintenance for her (§ 3228 Comp. Laws), grossly, wantonly and cruelly refused and neglected to do so. The defendant answered; a replication was filed and proof taken. The cause was heard upon pleadings and proofs, and a decree for a limited divorce was entered, with a provision for alimony of four hundred dollars per annum. The defendant appeals to this court.

W. B Wells, for complainant.

Willard Kingsley and James Miller, for defendant.

OPINION

Cooley J.

The bill in this case was filed to obtain a limited divorce and for alimony. The parties were married November 10th, 1845 and the bill avers as the cause for divorce, the following: "That the said John Brown, wholly disregarding the solemnity of his marriage vow, and his duty to your oratrix, has during the last three or four years been guilty of inhuman and cruel treatment of your oratrix, and for the last year has grossly, wantonly and cruelly refused and neglected to provide a suitable maintenance for your oratrix. And your oratrix further shows unto this honorable court and charges the truth to be, that the said John Brown did, on or about the fifteenth day of December, 1867, and for the whole year last past, grossly, wantonly and cruelly refused to support your oratrix; that she has frequently applied to the said John Brown to provide for her a suitable home and a comfortable support; he, the said defendant, has uniformly refused so to do, and replied that he would not support your oratrix, and that she might go to the poor-house for aught he cared, and that she should never receive any support from him." The bill contains further allegations, showing the pecuniary ability of the defendant to support his wife well, and that she has always been faithful and devoted in her marital relations.

It was not claimed by the complainant that this bill would warrant a divorce for extreme cruelty, nor was the evidence in the case taken on any such theory. On the contrary, all the evidence is directed to the question of a gross, wanton and cruel neglect and refusal to support. A question is made in this court of the sufficiency of the bill to warrant any decree for complainant, and the testimony taken appears to have been objected to on the ground that no case was made by the bill, because the cruelty charged was not set out with more particularity; but as a bill for a divorce on the ground of refusal to support, we think it is sufficient. In suing for a divorce on that ground, it was not necessary to aver any cruel treatment, except what was involved in the gross, wanton and cruel neglect and refusal of the defendant to support his wife, he being of sufficient ability. The bill in this case contains somewhat more than is generally essential, and would not, therefore, have been open to objection even on demurrer.

It appears, however, from the evidence, that the complainant is living apart from the defendant, and that while he refuses to furnish her the means of support away from his home, he nevertheless expresses a willingness to receive and support her there. It was to meet this excuse of the defendant for his refusal to support his wife, that we suppose the averments of cruel treatment are made in the bill, and the complainant has endeavored to show by...