Crossman v. Crossman
| Decision Date | 04 November 1947 |
| Citation | 55 A.2d 330,115 Vt. 219 |
| Parties | CYNTHIA T. CROSSMAN v. WAYNE E. CROSSMAN |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
October Term, 1947.
Divorce.
1. A husband's mistreatment of his wife on the last occasion of their cohabitation amounting to intolerable severity nullifies her condonation of his prior misconduct directed against her.
LIBEL FOR DIVORCE. Hearing by court, Rutland County Court September Term, 1946, Blackmer, J., presiding. Decree for the libellant.
Decree affirmed.
Asa S. Bloomer for the libellee.
Hayden LaBrake for the libellant.
Present MOULTON, C. J., BUTTLES, STURTEVANT and JEFFORDS, JJ. and CLEARY, Supr. J.
This is a divorce action. The grounds alleged are intolerable severity and non-support. The libellant had a decree for divorce on the ground first stated and for a property settlement below and the case is here on exceptions by the libelee.
Among the findings of fact appear the following.
The libellee .
It also appears from the findings that the libellee has threatened to shoot the libellant and also has threatened her with an open jackknife. He drinks to excess and his disposition is such that when he is drinking the libellant has good cause to and does fear him. Shortly before this action was brought, he ordered her off the farm where they had been residing and which they own as tenants by the entirety and after so ordering her off the premises he locked her out of the house. The parties have not lived together since. He has frequently called her offensive names. Over and above the obvious results of the aforementioned physical violence, the libellee's conduct has impaired the libellant's general health.
The court also found that the libellant is not perfect. She uses intoxicating liquor to some extent and on occasions has slapped the libellee on the mouth, once hit him in the face with her pocketbook, struck at him with a butcher knife which, during a quarrel, he handed to her for that purpose and she once shot a pistol over his head in his direction. However, the court finds that the libellee was not seriously injured on any of these occasions and that her conduct, under the circumstances, did not constitute intolerable severity.
The libellee contends that any ill treatment he may have inflicted on the libellant prior to September 16, 1946, the day on which she left their home, is remote and has been condoned and waived by her because they had been living together as husband and wife up to that time. He also claims that nothing he did on that date constituted intolerable severity and therefore there is no legal support for the action of the court in granting a divorce to the libellant on the ground of intolerable severity and he cites ...
To continue reading
Request your trial