Kolberg v. Kolberg
| Decision Date | 29 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
| Citation | 19 N.W.2d 480,312 Mich. 42 |
| Parties | KOLBERG v. KOLBERG. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Sherman D. Callender, Judge.
Suit by Mary M. Kolberg against Anthony D. Kolberg for divorce. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Decree affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
John A. Sunday, of Detroit (Herbert J. Pevos, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Payne & Payne, of Detroit, for appellee.
The parties hereto were married on February 12, 1938, and have three sons, the first being born on November 13, 1938, the second on May 10, 1940, and the third on May 31, 1941. Plaintiff prior to her marriage had been working in her father's office, and continued to do so for a short time thereafter. Defendant, who had recently graduated in dentistry, had been in the employ of another dentist, earning about $50 per week, and was still in debt for his college education. A few months after the marriage he opened his own dental office, and the parties lived in three back rooms of the floor on which the office was located.
About a year and a half later the defendant entered into a contract for building a new home into which the family moved, the former location being remodeled and the entire space thereafter used as a dental office. As a result of hard work and application to his profession, defendant's practice grew until he finally had in his employ three women assistants. Apparently this did not meet with the approval of plaintiff and she became jealous of defendant's application and attention to his office affairs and charged him with being more considerate of his assistants than of his wife. Some of the arguments became rather heated and, after a separation of the parties for a short time, a reconciliation was effected by the joint efforts of the parents.
On June 10, 1943, plaintiff filed a bill of complaint seeking a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and physical violence. On the witness stand, despite defendant's denials, plaintiff insisted that on one occasion, at least, he struck her. Defendant's explanation is that plaintiff became so abusive that, in order to quiet her, he ‘pushed her on the bed.’ Considerable testimony was received pro and con regarding the marital troubles, all of which indicates that neither party made the necessary effort to compose their difficulties.
After attempting to effect a reconciliation between them the trial judge observed that, although the proofs might have been sufficient to sustain a decree of divorce if the case were not contested, he was convinced that the defendant was devoted to his wife and sons, and could eventually effect a reconciliation provided the wife adopted the proper attitude. He stated that the proofs were insufficient to support a finding of extreme cruelty justifying the severance of the marriage relation.
A decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's bill of complaint, from which she has appealed, and she seeks a decree of divorce in this court.
We have examined the testimony de novo with the result that we agree with the conclusion reached by the trial judge. The three sons which have come to bless the union of the parties are entitled to have the family relations maintained, which, according to the father of each party, is within the realm of possibilities. We are impressed by the zeal and energy of the defendant, the difficulties he encountered in establishing himself, as well as the strain under which plaintiff maintained the home. There is, however, no reason why these two young people should not be able to compose their very insignificant and minor differences and find considerable happiness in life.
The law is clear in such instances. As stated in Miller v. Miller, 308 Mich. 600, 602, 14 N.W.2d 510, 511: “The law does not permit courts to sever the marriage bond and to break up housesholds, merely because parties, from unruly tempers or mutual wranglings, live unhappily together. It requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v. Gilchrist
...97, 113 N.W. 583; Allen v. Allen, 188 Mich. 532, 155 N.W. 488; Brookhouse v. Brookhouse, 286 Mich. 151, 281 N.W. 573; Kolberg v. Kolberg, 321 Mich. 42, 19 N.W.2d 480. Such false accusations of the nature involved occur most frequently when third parties are not Defendant sought to justify h......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...* I cannot force upon her a decree of divorce when she specifically requests separate maintenance.' In the case of Kolberg v. Kolberg, 312 Mich. 42, 46, 47, 19 N.W.2d 480, 481, we quoted with approval from Chubb v. Chubb, 297 Mich. 501, 506, 298 N.W. 111, as follows: ‘While we are not restr......
-
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 64.
...N.W. 715. The same words were cited with approval in Miller v. Miller, 308 Mich. 600, 602-603, 14 N.W.2d 510, and in Kolberg v. Kolberg, 312 Mich. 42, 45-46, 19 N.W.2d 480. In the latter two cases, additional words were cited from the opinion of Justice Campbell. A careful consideration of ......
-
Tackabury v. Tackabury, 81
...291 Mich. 18, 288 N.W. 860.' The statement above quoted has been referred to in many subsequent decisions of this Court. Kolberg v. Kolberg, 312 Mich. 42, 19 N.W.2d 480; Johnson v. Johnson, 314 Mich. 376, 22 N.W.2d 751; Wells v. Wells, 330 Mich. 448, 47 N.W.2d The proofs in the case fully j......