Cameron v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 31 December 1865
• Citation: 42 Tenn. 375
• Parties: CAMERON v. CAMERON.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

42 Tenn. 375

CAMERON

v.CAMERON.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1865.

FROM DAVIDSON.

Chancellor SAMUEL D. FRIERSON, at the May term, 1865, dismissed complainant's bill. Complainant appealed.THOS. SMILEY, for complainant.

___________, for respondents.

MILLIGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill, filed in the chancery court at Nashville, for divorce. The bill alleges that, in 1850, the complainant and defendant were married, in the State of Pennsylvania, and early in 1860, the complainant removed to Tennessee, where he has resided ever since. The defendant did not accompany her husband, as it is alleged, and “share his fortunes and destiny,” but remained behind, where, it is charged, she has been living in adultery, and in consequence of her illicit intercourse since the separation, has become the mother of two children, the paternity of which is denied by the complainant.

No plea or answer was filed by the wife, but it appears publication was regularly made, and a judgment pro confesso entered against the defendant. The proof establishes the adultery of the wife beyond controversy, but fails to show anything in relation to the complainant's character for virtue and chastity since the separation. The chancellor dismissed the bill, and there is an appeal in error prosecuted to this court.

There is no error in the decree of the chancellor. The marriage contract is peculiar, and in many respects different from all others. It is for life, and the parties have no power, by mutual consent, to dissolve it. The moment it is solemnized, society, for the wisest reasons, is interested in the fidelity with which it shall be observed; and it cannot be annulled, without the consent of the tribunals of the country, specially clothed with such power. The law itself will not allow a divorce, even upon the solemn admission of the parties in the pleadings. The facts of the admission, necessary to predicate a decree upon, must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence. Were the law otherwise, the bonds of matrimony might be dissolved by collusion, fraud and intimidation, and the marriage relation, with all its blessings and sacred consequences, coverted into an engine of mischief and crime. For the same wise reason, the principles of the law, justifying the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony, require the party making the application, to come into court with clean hands.

The Code, sec. 2460, declares: “If the...