Brunner v. Brunner

• Decision Date: 10 January 1889
• Citation: 16 A. 385,70 Md. 105
• Parties: BRUNNER v. BRUNNER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

16 A. 385

70 Md. 105

BRUNNER v. BRUNNER.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 10, 1889

Cross-appeals from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Bill by Martha S. Brunner against her husband, Joseph B. Brunner, for divorce a vinculo matrimonii. Decree for divorce a mensa et thoro, and both parties appeal.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, ROBINSON, MCSHERRY, IRVING and YELLOTT, JJ.

Frank X. Ward, for complainant.

Joseph Whyte, for defendant.

YELLOTT J.

On the 17th day of April, 1888, in the circuit court of Baltimore city, a bill was filed by Martha S. Brunner against her husband, Joseph B. Brunner. The plaintiff alleges in her said bill that her husband has not, during the last four years contributed to her support, or that of her child, and that she has been compelled to depend upon the kindness of her parents for her maintenance; that her said husband has abandoned and deserted her; that such abandonment has continued uninterruptedly for at least three years; that it is deliberate and final; and that the separation of the parties is such that there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. The plaintiff asks for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. On the 2d day of June, 1888, the defendant filed his answer, admitting the facts of marriage and birth of children, but denying the verity of all the allegations of such facts set forth in the bill as form the foundation of the prayer for the relief invoked by the plaintiff. The court below declined to pass a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii, but on the 12th day of July passed a decree divorcing the parties a mensa et thoro. From this decree both parties here appealed.

The court below was certainly right in refusing to grant a divorce a vinculo, as prayed for in the bill of complaint. There is no evidence in this record sufficient to prove the fact of an abandonment. It is true that for some time before the institution of this suit the parties had not been living together. He had sought and obtained employment in New York, and she was living in Baltimore with her parents, who seem to have been abundantly able to afford her a support. But the parties maintained a constant correspondence, and her letters are such as an affectionate wife would write. His letters must have been of the same character, for in each of her letters she speaks of his "welcome letter" just received. A "welcome letter" from husband to wife must have been a kind and affectionate letter. This correspondence continued until the 10th of April, 1888, and in all her letters she expresses an earnest hope that they will soon be reunited. Such evidence conclusively disproves the allegation of abandonment without hope of reconciliation.

There seems to be no proof in this record sufficient to support a decree a mensa et thoro. No allegation of cruelty appears in the bill of complaint, nor is there in the record any evidence tending to establish the fact of harsh and cruel treatment. There is an averment in the bill that he has not...