Graves v. Graves
| Decision Date | 21 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 3913,3913 |
| Citation | 193 Va. 659,70 S.E.2d 339 |
| Parties | HESTER HICKS GRAVES v. THOMAS T. GRAVES. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
B. A. Lewis, for the appellant.
Emerson D. Baugh, for the appellee.
Hester Hicks Graves, appellant, obtained this appeal from a decree granting her husband Thomas T. Graves, a divorce on the ground of desertion. Appellant's only contention is that there was no corroboration of appellee's testimony, hence the evidence was insufficient to support his charge of wilful desertion.
Appellee testified that when the parties were married on April 13, 1942, he was 51 and his wife, a widow, with no children, was over 43 years of age; that he desired to live in a house owned by him, but his wife stated that she preferred to live with her father who was old and needed her attention. His wife's sister and her husband, Bernard Gilliam, with their children, lived in this home. For some time after the marriage he worked at Camp Pickett. On June 15, 1943, he went to work in Maryland and returned home every six weeks. After the father died another sister living in New York 'sent the children down from New York for me to take care of. ' Living conditions in the home were crowded and unpleasant. After his wife declined to live in his home 'because she was afraid of foxes,' appellee bought another tract of land near his sister and selected a site, approved by his wife, for the building of a new house. Later his wife changed her mind and told him that she was not going to move there with him. On this final refusal, December 27, 1945, he moved to his sister's which has been his home since that time.
Appellee, on cross-examination, stated that prior to 1945, he asked his wife to live with him in Maryland where he would get a house for her, or they would board and she could work in the factory, but she preferred to live with her people and raise chickens which he bought for her. He has not lived with his wife since December, 1945. He heard she was living in New York.
While the relation of husband and wife has been modified in many respects by statute, a husband still has the right to select the place of abode and a wife must acquiesce in such selection, provided the decision of the husband is not unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust, and not used as a means of procuring a dissolution of the marital relation. If the husband changes his place of abode and the wife, without legal excuse, refuses to live there with him, such refusal constitutes desertion on her part. Burk v. Burk, 21 W.Va. 445; Hall v. Hall, 69 W.Va. 175, 71 S.E. 103, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 758.
The site selected by the parties for building a new home was in sight and calling distance of the home of appellee's sister, and at least one other neighbor. Appellee told his wife that if she desired, he would get two of his nieces or nephews to live with her while he was away, or she could get two or three of her own people to live with her; that he was willing to support some of his wife's people if they lived with her in a home selected by him, but he was not willing to support his wife's nieces and nephews in a house owned and controlled by someone else.
Appellant in her answer denied the allegation of the bill, and prayed that the court require her husband to pay her reasonable expense in defending the suit, including an attorney's fee, and for her support and maintenance 'pending determination' of the suit 'and thereafter as the court may determine. ' She introduced no evidence in her own behalf.
The only question is whether there is sufficient corroboration of appellee's testimony to comply with the statute (sec. 20-99). The question of corroboration is one of fact, the decision of which in each case depends upon the peculiar facts of that particular case. It is not necessary that the testimony of the complaining spouse be corroborated on every elment or essential charge stated as a ground for divorce. The corroborative testimony need not be sufficient, standing alone, to prove the alleged ground for divorce. Any other rule would deprive the testimony of the complaining spouse of any practical effect. The general rule is that where a particular fact or circumstance is vital to complainant's case, some evidence of the same, in addition to the complainant's own testimony, is essential. The main object of the provision of the statute requiring corroboration is to prevent collusion. Where it is apparent that there is no collusion, the corroboration needs to be only slight. Forbes v. Forbes, 182 Va. 636, 29 S.E. (2d) 829; Bowersox v. Bowersox, 157 Md. 476, 146 A. 266, 65 A.L.R. 165, Annotation 169; 17 Am. Jur., Divorce and Separation, sec. 386, p. 338.
Mr. Justice Eggleston, in Forbes v. Forbes, supra, quoted with approval the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seehorn v. Seehorn
...the circumstances shown in the record adequately furnish the required corroboration of her desertion. See Graves v. Graves, 193 Va. 659, 661-62, 70 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1952). Moreover, the evidence did not support her claim that her departure from the family residence was legally justified. Th......
-
Dodge v. Dodge, 0881-85
...rest in the testimony of witnesses but may be furnished by surrounding circumstances adequately established. Graves v. Graves, 193 Va. 659, 661-62, 70 S.E.2d 339, 340-41 (1952) (emphasis added) (citations It is clear that there was no collusion in this case and that the evidence disclosed a......
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, Record No. 0218-06-2 (Va. App. 10/24/2006)
...prevent collusion. Where it is apparent that there is no collusion, the corroboration needs to be only slight. Graves v. Graves, 193 Va. 659, 662-63, 70 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1952). Here, there is no appearance in the record of collusion between the parties. The testimony of wife's friend regard......
-
Morgan v. Watkins, Record No. 3066-06-2 (Va. App. 11/13/2007)
...prevent collusion. Where it is apparent that there is no collusion, the corroboration needs to be only slight. Graves v. Graves, 193 Va. 659, 662-63, 70 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1952). Here, there is no appearance in the record of any collusion between the parties. Thus, the requisite corroboration......