Hartwell v. Hartwell
| Decision Date | 10 December 1919 |
| Parties | HARTWELL v. HARTWELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederic H. Chase, Judge.
Libel for divorce by John F. Hartwell against Mary E. L. Hartwell. Decree dismissing the libel, and libelant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Thibodeau, Ellsworth & Yont, of Boston, for libelant.
This is a libel for divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married in September, 1904. Between that time and May, 1912, the libelee was twice placed under restraint as an insane person, having been confined the first time more than two years and the second time a little less than one year. From May, 1912, to February 8, 1913, she was sane. On the latter date she left her husband and took with her the younger of the two children born of the marriage, being at that time sane and fully appreciating the consequences of her act. The trial judge was unable to make any finding as to the length of time she then intended to stay away from her husband. She went to the house of relatives where she remained with her child about twelve days. She was then examined by physicians and on February 25, 1913, was adjudged to be insane and committed to an asylum where she has since been confined without having regained sanity.
[1][2] The ruling that the libel must be dismissed was right. It is provided by R. L. c. 152, § 1, that ‘a divorce * * * may be decreed for * * * utter desertion continued for three consecutive years next prior to the filing of the libel.’ These words according to their natural significance import not only a sane mind in determining upon the initial act of cessation of cohabitation but a persistent and rational abnegation of the duties and obligations of marriage for the required period. They demand not only intelligence in deciding upon original separation but also understanding and capacity to apprehend during the entire term specified in the statute. There must be a conscious volition to continue the desertion throughout the period, unaffected by lunacy. One of the objects of the establishment of a substantial time of desertion as a prerequisite for maintenance of a libel for divorce on that ground is to enable the offending party to repent and return to the matrimonial home, and thus to afford opportunity to the parties to become reconciled and live together again. That object would be frustrated in cases where the mind to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Wood
...144, 167; 4 A.L.R. 1333; Dorsey v. Dorsey, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 284, 195 F.2d 567; Cox v. Cox, 268 Ala. 572, 109 So.2d 703; Hartwell v. Hartwell, 234 Mass. 250, 125 N.E. 208; Schouler, Marriage and Divorce, 6th Ed., p. 1837, § 1621; Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, 2nd Ed., § 4.11, p. 82; Pipiton......
-
Rice v. Rice
...958; Buckingham v. Alden, 315 Mass. 383, 53 N.E.2d 101; Meyer v. Meyer, 326 Mass. 491, 493, 95 N.E.2d 645. In Hartwell v. Hartwell, 234 Mass. 250, at page 251, 125 N.E. 208, Rugg, C. J., said, 'An act which if performed by a normal person would be ground for divorce affords no justification......
-
Hano v. Hano
...as a defense to an action for divorce based upon conduct which was committed while under a mental disability. Hartwell v. Hartwell, 234 Mass. 250, 251, 125 N.E. 208 (1919). Cosgrove v. Cosgrove, 351 Mass. 64, 66, 217 N.E.2d 754 (1966). We hold that the defendant's mental condition is likewi......
-
Cosgrove v. Cosgrove
...that she could not appreciate the nature and consequences of her acts. See Broadstreet. v. Broadstreet, 7 Mass. 474; Hartwell v. Hartwell, 234 Mass. 250, 125 N.E. 208. It is recognized in many jurisdictions that not every type or degree of mental illness constitutes the kind of insanity whi......