Hooper v. Hooper
Decision Date | 31 January 1854 |
Citation | 19 Mo. 355 |
Parties | HOOPER, Appellant v. HOOPER, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Under the act of March 12, 1849, amendatory of the act of 1845, concerning divorces, it is not necessary that indignities, to be the ground of a divorce, should be offered to the person.
2. Under the act of March 12, 1849, amendatory of the act of 1845, the writing of a letter by a husband to his wife, declaring his determination never again to live with her, assigning no other reason than that she did not suit him, that he had been deceived in her, and that she had been guilty of improper conduct towards his relatives, is not an indignity which is a ground for a divorce.
3. Nor is the posting up of a notice by the husband, notifying all persons not to credit the wife, any ground for a divorce.
4. Abandonment without cause, and refusal to provide for and support a wife is good ground for a decree of maintenance, under the ninth section of the act of 1845.
Gardenhire, for appellant.
I. The facts shown in the petition entitle the plaintiff to a divorce. In Lewis v. Lewis, 5 Mo. 278, this court decided that the charge of infidelity was such a personal indignity as was contemplated by the statute. In Cheatham v. Cheatham, 10 Mo. 296, this decision was overruled. At the next session of the general assembly, (in 1849) the law was changed. The words “ “Divorces,” sec. 9.
Hicks, for respondent.
The petition does not specify any of the causes for a divorce enumerated in the act. Session acts of 1849. The letter contains no charges which are such indignities as the act contemplates. Advertisement is no ground for a divorce; nor is a mere threat of abandonment. It is conceded that, if the defendant had abandoned her and absented himself from her for two years, it would have been a ground for a divorce, under a clause in the first section of the act of 1846.
The plaintiff, Susan W. Hooper, filed her petition for a divorce and for alimony, alleging that her husband, a few months after their marriage, and when he was absent from her at his father's residence, wrote a letter to her, in which he declared his determination never again to live with her, stating no other ground or reason for such determination, than that she did not suit him, and that he had been deceived in her, and that her improper manner toward his relatives had occasioned him the loss of about a thousand dollars. The petition states also, that immediately after writing the letter the husband caused several notices in writing to be posted up in the county, in which he notified all persons not to trust his wife, as he would not pay any debts she might contract. It is further alleged that he has carried out his declared purpose of not living with the complainant, and has, without any cause, abandoned her, and refused to maintain and provide for her. The petition alleges that the conduct of her husband was such as to render her condition wretched and intolerable, but this is stated without any other specification of misconduct on his part, than the letter and notice before mentioned. The husband filed a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained, and judgment given for the defendant.
1. Since the decision in Cheatham v. Cheatham, 10 Mo., 296, the act of 1845, upon the subject of divorces, has been somewhat modified by the act of March 12, 1849. Sess. acts, 1849. The first ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reeves v. Reeves
...Dawson, 37 Mo.App. 207, 210. The judgment of the circuit court is, in all respects, affirmed. RUARK and HOGAN, JJ., concur. 1 Hooper v. Hooper, 19 Mo. 355, 357; Whitwell v. Whitwell, 318 Mo. 476, 481, 300 S.W. 455, 456; Boehme v. Boehme, Mo.App., 72 S.W.2d 115; Jaros v. Jaros, Mo.App., 395 ......
-
L v. N
...1949, V.A.M.S. The judgment and decree of the trial court is, in all respects, affirmed. McDOWELL and RUARK, JJ., concur. 1 Hooper v. Hooper, 19 Mo. 355, 357; Whitwell v. Whitwell, 318 Mo. 476, 481, 300 S.W. 455, 456; Boehme v. Boehme, Mo.App., 72 S.W.2D 115; Garton v. Garton, Mo.App., 246 ......
-
Arnold v. Arnold
...inflicted, as is the venereal disease, both of which may be proved in support of a statutory allegation of indignities. Hooper v. Hooper, 19 Mo. 355, loc. cit. 357; McCann v. McCann, 91 Mo. App. 1, loc. cit. 2, 3; Goodman v. Goodman, 80 Mo. App. loc. cit. IV. It was shown that the plaintiff......
-
Douglass v. Douglass
...of one year and in such situation the petition is insufficient. Section 1801, R. S. 1919; McCarty v. McCarty, 117 Mo.App. 115; Hooper v. Hooper, 19 Mo. 355; 9 R. C. L. 358; 19 C. J. 61; Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1071, (Neb.), 116 N.W. 499. The purported indignities alleg......