Huston v. Huston's Committee
| Decision Date | 31 October 1912 |
| Citation | 150 Ky. 353,150 S.W. 386 |
| Parties | HUSTON v. HUSTON'S COMMITTEE et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.
Action by Mattie E. Huston against Hugh Huston's committee and another. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. A Edge, of Lexington, for appellant.
R. S Crawford, of Lexington, for appellees.
Plaintiff Mattie E. Huston, brought this action against Hugh Huston and his committee, W. A. Garland, for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. A demurrer was sustained to the petition as amended and the petition dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
In addition to the usual allegations in regard to residence and citizenship, it appears from the petition that plaintiff and defendant were married on December 7, 1896, and continued to live together for several years. On February 17, 1905, defendant was adjudged of unsound mind and committed to the asylum. W. A. Garland was appointed his committee. Within one year prior to the time when defendant was adjudged insane, he behaved towards plaintiff for more than six months in such a cruel and inhuman manner as to indicate a settled aversion to her, and to destroy permanently her peace and happiness. His behavior consisted in abusing and cursing plaintiff, and assaulting her at frequent intervals, and in charging her to be unchaste, when he knew that such statements were false. After being confined in the asylum for several months, the defendant was released. It is alleged that, at the time of filling the petition and amended petition, he was sound mind, though no judgment to that effect had ever been rendered by a jury. It is unnecessary to set out the allegations of the petition and amended petition at length.
As the defendant had been adjudged of unsound mind, and a committee for him appointed, and as he was never thereafterwards adjudged of sound mind, and his committee discharged, the action was properly brought against him and his committee, even though the defendant was of sound mind when the action was brought. In such a case, defense may be made for a lunatic by his committee as in other cases. Andrews v. Andrews' Committee, 120 Ky. 718, 87 S.W. 1080, 90 S.W. 581, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1119.
While it is true that neither a wife nor a husband may obtain a divorce from the other on the ground of insanity, or for acts committed during such insanity (Pile v. Pile, 94 Ky. 308, 22 S.W. 215, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 88), it is, as claimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Hayes
... ... Separation, and Domestic Relations, 1880; Huston v ... Huston's Committee, 150 Ky. 353, 150 S.W. 386; ... Pile v. Pile, 94 Ky. 308, 22 S.W. 215; ... ...
-
Ward v. Ward
...such facts were not therefore available to defendant so as to entitle her to a divorce therefor. Davis Case, supra, and Huston v. Huston, 150 S.W. 386, 150 Ky. 353. whether the provisions of the statute and Code are jurisdictional, or intended to prescribe a limitation, we need not determin......
-
Steed v. Steed
...Iowa 421; Rathbun v. Rathbun, 40 How. Prac. (N.Y.) 328. They also cite 2 Bishop, Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, section 518. In Huston v. Huston, supra, the Supreme of Kentucky said: "While it is true that neither a wife nor a husband may obtain a divorce from the other on the ground of......
-
Wilemon v. Wilemon
...v. Stratford, 92 N. C. 297; Rathbun v. Rathbun, 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 328; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okl. 60, 158 Pac. 368; Huston v. Huston, 150 Ky. 353, 150 S. W 386. We recommend that the question be answered in the CURETON, C. J. The opinion of the Commission of Appeals, answering certified ques......