Garvey v. Garvey
Decision Date | 29 November 1946 |
Parties | GARVEY v. GARVEY. |
Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied by Surpeme Court April 12, 1947.
Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Haywood County; Lyle B. Cherry Judge.
Suit for divorce by Lucille Gibbs Garvey against Fred A. Garvey on ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and indignities to the person. From a decree of absolute divorce in favor of the petitioner, the defendant appeals in error.
Affirmed and remanded.
W. W. Bond, H. D. Sternberger, and Rosa Haywood, all of Brownsville, for plaintiff in error.
Gray & Gray and Hugh L. Clarke, all of Brownsville, for defendant in error.
Mrs Lucille Gibbs Garvey instituted this suit for divorce and alimony on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and indignities to her person under Code, Section 8427. The trial court determined the issues in favor of the petitioner on both of the grounds alleged in the petition and granted a decree of absolute divorce with alimony in the sum of $5,250. The husband appeals.
Since one of the principal contentions of the defendant husband is that the trial court erred in not holding that the petition fails to charge cruel and inhuman treatment with the particularity required by the statute, we quote at the outset the material portions of the petition:
Following these allegations, the petition charges that defendant has offered such indignities to petitioner's person as to render her condition intolerable and force her to withdraw and that defendant has been guilty of such cruel and inhuman treatment or conduct toward petitioner as to render it unsafe and improper for her to live or cohabit with him and be under his dominion and control. The petition further charges that the defendant was concealing himself and his property and was about to remove himself and property out of the State privately and fraudulently and prayed for writs of injunction and ne exeat.
Later, the bill was amended reiterating in general the charges of abuse and mistreatment contained in the original petition and adding:
'On one occasion he threatened to throw her down the stairway because she got a negro woman to help her do some house work.' It is insisted that the amendment cannot be considered because the appended affidavit is not in the language required by the statute for a bill for divorce in that it fails to reaffirm petitioner's good faith in making the complaint and fails to negative levity and collusion. We think the policy of the statute was served when the proper affidavit was attached to the original petition and that it was unnecessary to again take the required oath.
Code, Section 8430, requires that a bill for divorce shall set forth particularly and specifically the causes of the complaint, with circumstances of time and place, and with reasonable certainty. It is charged with much earnestness and vigor that the petition in this case is deficient because the circumstances of time and place are not alleged with the required particularity. While the argument is plausibly presented, we think an analysis of the petition will demonstrate its sufficiency.
The whole tenor and import of the petition and amendment was that defendant had embarked upon a course of mistreatment designed to reduce petitioner to such a state of ill health, servility, want, humiliation and fear that she would be forced to withdraw and that defendant, when the bill was filed, was scheming to appropriate to himself the benefit of her labor over a period of two years while she worked in the store without compensation except the barest necessities of life and leave her penniless and helpless.
According to the petition, all of this occurred after the parties moved to Brownsville and purchased the store and during the two years before the bill was filed. Much of the mistreatment alleged is fairly shown to have occurred in the store within this two year period and 'in the presence of strangers and friends.' It is further alleged that 'recently' the store had been sold and 'on yesterday' that defendant had stated that he had withdrawn all of his money from the bank so that petitioner could not get anything and that he intended to abandon her and leave the State with all his money without telling where he was going.
Much of this material is of a general nature designed to charge a course of conduct as reflected by many little things none of which, standing alone, would constitute a sufficient ground for divorce but which, in the aggregate, add up to extreme cruelty and indicate a wanton disregard of petitioner's sensibilities as a woman of refinement. Such charges do not readily lend themselves to great detail and particularity as to time and place. For example, unless petitioner kept a diary it would not be expected that she would remember the dates when she was cursed, abused and humiliated. The bill does charge that these things occurred in the store while petitioner worked there. The law will not require the impossible and we think the petition, as amended, is amply sufficient to put defendant on notice of the charge he would be required to answer. This is the purpose of the statutory requirement and all that is required. Brown v. Brown, 159 Tenn. 551, 553, 20 S.W.2d 1037.
Like general charges implying a course of conduct with no more...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Earls v Earls, 99-00035
...Code Ann. § 36-4-101(11) (Supp. 1999); Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Tenn. 410, 412, 58 S.W. 342, 343 (1900); Garvey v. Garvey, 29 Tenn. App. 291, 299-300, 203 S.W.2d 912, 916 (1946); White v. White, Carrol Eq. No. 3, 1988 WL 101253 at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1988) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 appl......
-
Humphreys v. Humphreys
...to torture the complaining spouse's mental health or emotional nature and affecting his or her bodily health. Garvey v. Garvey, 29 Tenn.App. 291, 300, 203 S.W.2d 912; Meeks v. Meeks, 27 Tenn.App. 279, 179 S.W.2d False charges of adultery have repeatedly been held to constitute such cruel an......
-
Burkhart v. Burkhart
...See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101(11); Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Tenn. 410, 412, 58 S.W. 342, 343 (1900); Garvey v. Garvey, 29 Tenn. App. 291, 299-300, 203 S.W.2d 912, 916 (1946); White v. White, Carrol Eq. No. 3, 1988 WL 101253 at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1988) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 applica......
-
Longanacre v. Longanacre
...See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-101(11) (Supp. 1999); Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Tenn. 410, 412, 58 S.W. 342, 343 (1900); Garvey v. Garvey, 29 Tenn. App. 291, 299-300, 203 S.W.2d 912, 916 (1946); White v. White, Carrol Eq. No. 3, 1988 WL 101253 at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 1988) (no Tenn. R. App. ......