Feybusch v. Feybusch
| Decision Date | 16 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 100.,100. |
| Citation | 160 A. 386 |
| Parties | FEYBUSCH v. FEYBUSCH. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.+++
1. Where the testimony of the petitioner in a divorce case makes out a case of extreme cruelty, the rule of corroboration only requires that belief in its truthfulness must find support in the testimony of others, or of surrounding established circumstances. If certain acts of cruelty are corroborated, it is fair to assume that the uncontradicted testimony of the petitioner of other acts of cruelty, for which corroboration is lacking, is true.
2. False and malicious charges of adultery, couched in vile and indecent language, persistently made to and against the wife by her husband, in the presence of their half-grown children, causing her anguish and pain, when made without any reasonable cause for suspecting the wife's fidelity, will justify a decree of divorce upon the ground of extreme cruelty, particularly when there is proof that such charges were accompanied by actual physical violence, and even though the last one of the many charges was made in a divorce proceeding brought by the husband against the wife.
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Martha Feybusch against Martin Feybusch. From a decree dismissing her petition, petitioner appeals.
Reversed, with directions, and the record remitted.
Charles W. Stover, of Hoboken, for appellant.
This is the wife's appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery dismissing her petition, filed December 23, 1930, for divorce from the bonds of matrimony for the cause of extreme cruelty of her husband.
The husband filed no answer and the case was brought on ex parte before a special master who recommended a divorce. The Court of Chancery, however, on the advice of the advisory master, dismissed the petition.
We think the special master was right, and the advisory master wrong, and that the divorce should have been granted. The wife's petition averred in effect, and she proved, and the special master found, that the parties were married on September 4, 1916; that three children were born of the marriage; that on July 5, 1927, the parties separated because of persistent and false charges of infidelity made by the husband against the wife, sometimes accompanied by beatings; that when they separated the children went with the wife; that on May 15, 1928, the husband established his residence in Hoboken in this state where he has ever since continuously resided; that upon several occasions in the summer of 1928, during interviews between the husband and wife concerning the custody and welfare of the children, sometimes sought by the husband and sometimes by the wife, sometimes in New Jersey and sometimes in New York, the husband repeated such false charges of adultery against the wife, using vile and indecent language in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinsella v. Kinsella
...or of surrounding established circumstances.' " Scalingi, supra, 65 N.J. at 184, 320 A.2d 475 (quoting Feybusch v. Feybusch, 110 N.J.Eq. 358, 359-60, 160 A. 386 (E. & A.1932)). Today, courts frequently do not require corroboration for extreme cruelty claims. See Gazzillo, supra, 153 N.J.Sup......
-
Morrone v. Morrone
...Hill v. Hill, 97 N.J.Eq. 237, 127 A. 584 (Ch.1925); Barton v. Barton, 97 N.J.Eq. 404, 128 A. 798 (Ch.1925); Feybusch v. Feybusch, 110 N.J.Eq. 358, 160 A. 386 (E. & A.1932); Perguidi v. Perguidi, 138 N.J.Eq. 559, 49 A.2d 150 (E. & It has been observed that the counterclaim as well as the tes......
-
H. v. H., A--535
...of the other so as to utterly destroy the objects of matrimony, it amounts to extreme cruelty.' See also Feybusch v. Feybusch, 110 N.J.Eq. 358, 160 A. 386 (E. & A.1932); Hill v. Hill, 97 N.J.Eq. 237, 241, 127 A. 584 (Ch.1925); Yorn v. Yorn, 138 N.J.Eq. 608, 610, 49 A.2d 136 (E. & A.1946). C......
-
Macarthur v. Macarthur.
...399, 131 A. 876; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 121 N.J.Eq. 234, 189 A. 50; Hill. v. Hill, 97 N.J.Eq. 237, 127 A. 584; Feybusch v. Feybusch, 110 N.J.Eq. 358, 160 A. 386. The next question is whether or not the conduct of the wife in the instant case with its consequent effect upon the husband ......