Cheatham v. Cheatham
| Citation | 10 Mo. 296 |
| Parties | CHEATHAM v. CHEATHAM. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1847 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
APPEAL FROM SALINE CIRCUIT COURT.
KELLY, for Appellant, cites: Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Mo. R. 278; Rev. Code, p. 426, § 1.
LEONARD, LOWE & CHILTON, for Appellee. 1st. A charge of infidelity, made by the husband, is not “an indignity to the person” of the wife within the meaning of our statute, upon the subject of divorce. See Rev. Code 1845, p. 426. 2nd. Admitting such an imputation to be a good cause of divorce, the fact is not here charged with sufficient particularity of time, place and circumstance. See 2 Johns. Ch. R. 224; also 6 Johns. Ch. R. 347; 1 Mo. R. 320. 3rd. Even if a general charge of the imputation of adultery be sufficient, this bill is defective in not alleging that the accusation was without any reasonable cause on the part of the husband. See 5 Mo. R. 278. 4th. It is also defective in omitting to show that the complainant was a resident of this State for one year next preceding the filing of the bill, or that the offense was committed within the State, or while one of the parties resided here. Rev. Stat., Divorce and Alimony, § 4.
This was an application for a divorce, a vinculo matrimonii. The petitioner, Martha S. Cheatham, set forth in her petition that she was married to Joseph B. Cheatham on the 11th day of September, 1846, at the county of Saline; that they cohabited together as husband and wife until the 22nd November, 1846, at which time, the petitioner alleges, the said Joseph deserted her, and left her without the means of support. She alleges further, that on the very day of their marriage the said Joseph commenced mistreating her, bidding her not to speak to any man, &c., and that although she had, before her marriage and since, conducted herself in a modest and prudent manner, the said Joseph B. offered the grossest indignities to her person, by charging her with infidelity, and with having a criminal intercourse with other men and with negro men, which conduct, the petitioner alleges, rendering her condition intolerable; it is also charged that during the time of their cohabitation, the said Joseph procured a loaded pistol, and conducted himself in a menacing, cruel and barbarous manner towards the said petitioner, so as to make her believe her life was in imminent danger, &c. To this petition the defendant demurred, and the Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and the only question for our determination is the sufficiency of this petition. The only allegation in the petition which is relied upon as sufficient to authorize a divorce, is the charge of such personal indignities as rendered the petitioner's condition intolerable. The personal indignities specified, were charges of infidelity made by the husband.
In the case of Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Mo. R. 278, decided by this court in 1838, the bill contained a general charge of indignities offered to the person of the complainant, without specifying in what those indignities consisted.(a) The defendant's answer denied the allegations of the bill, and the proof was that the husband had charged the wife with infidelity. The court was of the opinion that though the bill might have been demurred to successfully, the charges of infidelity were indignities to the person within the contemplation of the statute.
The grounds upon which this construction of the statute was made, are not disclosed in the published opinion. There can be no doubt that too great a facility in obtaining divorces is exceedingly injurious to the good morals and happiness of domestic life. Whilst therefore it devolves upon the courts to decree divorces in such cases, and upon such grounds as the Legislature have determined to be sufficient, they are certainly not required or expected to let in a multitude of cases, by construction, which neither the letter of the statute, nor the soundest principles of public policy, would tolerate. If charges of infidelity, brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gooding v. Gooding
...in the statute. No later Supreme Court case upon the point has been cited by either party, and it does not appear that the ruling in the Cheatham case has been questioned as the settled law of this state to the effect that a petition in a divorce case which fails to state one or the other o......
-
Phelps v. Phelps
...effect since 1825. See Hays v. Hays, 324 Mo. 810, 24 S.W.2d 997. It has been determined in a long line of cases beginning with Cheatham v. Cheatham, 10 Mo. 296, that a petition for divorce which does not allege that the plaintiff had resided within this state on whole year next before the f......
-
Gooding v. Gooding
...of the proviso added in 1943, has been in effect in this state many decades. Under numerous adjudications beginning with Cheatham v. Cheatham, 10 Mo. 296, it has been determined that in order to confer jurisdiction upon the trial court in a divorce case the petition must allege one or the o......
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy
... ... and will not support a judgment; the trial court lacking ... jurisdiction of the subject-matter. Cheatham v ... Cheatham, 10 Mo. 296; Collins v. Collins, 53 ... Mo.App. 470; Sharpe v. Sharpe, 134 Mo.App. 278; ... Ammerman v. Ammerman, 188 Mo.App. 50 ... ...