Henderson v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 19 May 1939
• Citation: 189 So. 24,137 Fla. 770
• Parties: HENDERSON v. HENDERSON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

189 So. 24

137 Fla. 770

HENDERSON v. HENDERSON.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

May 19, 1939

Proceeding by Parker A. Henderson, Jr., against Elizabeth Carroll Henderson for a divorce upon the ground of extreme cruelty. From a decree granting the husband a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, the wife appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; W. W Trammell, Judge.

COUNSEL

Charles M. Moon and A. N. Spence, both of Miami, and Heard W. Dent of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

John M Murrell and Worley & Gautier, all of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

THOMAS Justice.

The Chancellor entered his decree granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii to the complainant husband, reciting therein that the testimony was taken orally before the court. The defendant wife was charged in the bill of complaint with extreme cruelty and having a violent and ungovernable temper.

Giving the weight to the decree to which it is entitled, particularly where the evidence is introduced before the chancellor as distinguished from a master, we have studied the record and briefs in our effort to determine whether the defendant, appellant here, should be upheld in her contentions that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges and that condonation was established.

The marriage of the parties was of but a few weeks duration. Hardly had the echo of wedding bells become stilled when the husband was seized with a serious illness and found himself in a hospital. There he was informed that he was suffering from a kidney ailment which necessitated an operation and that before this could be attempted it would be necessary to build up his strength.

While thus confined the wife paid him many visits during which her conduct fell far short of aiding him in the preparation to meet the ordeal of a major operation. Testimony was given that she showed general displeasure at the inconvenience she was experiencing because of an ailing husband, which even reached such an extent that she slammed doors, berated him, exclaiming on one occasion that she cared not whether he recovered, emphasizing the remark with profanity. Upon leaving the hospital to spend the Christmas holidays at home, without, however, having undergone the operation, general disagreement continued until the wife was induced to go to the home of her parents in another State while the husband returned to the hospital for medical treatment against the day when the operation would be performed in an effort to restore his health.

The husband did not carry out his plans for further hospitalization, the wife returned to him, the quarrel was renewed and the separation occurred, culminating in the divorce. The misconduct of the wife after rejoining her husband consisted mainly of aspersions cast upon his mother and embarrassment caused him by her treatment of those whom he held dear. We will devote our observations to the question whether extreme cruelty was established by the facts.

The rule was announced in Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Fla. 215 7 So. 864, that one could not prevail on this ground in the absence of actual bodily violence unless the conduct otherwise injured health or rendered cohabitation intolerable and unsafe or gave rise to fear of bodily harm...