Legatski v. Legatski, 71

• Decision Date: 03 April 1925
• Docket Number: Oct. Term, 1924.,No. 71,71
• Citation: 203 N.W. 69,230 Mich. 186
• Parties: LEGATSKI v. LEGATSKI.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

230 Mich. 186

203 N.W. 69

LEGATSKI

v.LEGATSKI.

No. 71, Oct. Term, 1924.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 3, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Alpena County, in Chancery; Frank Emerick, Judge.

Action for divorce by Emma E. Legatski against Richard C. Legatski, in which defendant filed cross-bill. From a decree dismissing plaintiff's bill and granting defendant divorce upon the cross-bill, plaintiff appeals. Bill and cross-bill dismissed.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Frank T. Hinks, of Alpena, for appellant.

I. S. Canfield, of Alpena, for appellee.

McDONALD, C. J.

The parties to this action were married on or about September 25, 1911. They lived together as husband and wife until April, 1923, at which time they separated. They each had some property, and both had children by former marriages. On April 20, 1923, the plaintiff filed her bill in which she asked for a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The defendant answered and filed a cross-bill, in which he also charged extreme cruelty. After hearing the proofs, the circuit judge filed the following opinion:

‘The plaintiff in this case has entirely failed to sustain her charges of cruelty by any convincing proof.

‘She never had any affection for defendant, nor any regard except for his monetary contributions, and, in that respect, she has fared well.

‘Her bill will be dismissed, without costs.

‘On the other hand, the defendant has maintained his charges of cruelty beyond any question and will be granted a decree of absolute divorce upon his cross-bill.

‘At and from the time of the marriage of the parties, the plaintiff was and is better off financially than defendant.

‘He made her a tenant by the entireties of his home on Second street, which will be restored to him under section 11438, as construed in the case of Allen v. Allen, 196 Mich. 292, 162 N. W. 987.

‘For the purposes and requirements of section 11436, defendant will pay plaintiff, within 30 days from the settlement of decree, the sum of $250.'

From the decree entered the plaintiff has appealed.

[1] Conceding that the circuit judge was right in finding that the plaintiff was guilty of extreme cruelty, we think the evidence is equally clear that the defendant was guilty of like misconduct. The plaintiff testified at considerable length to various acts of the defendant, which, under the circumstances, if true, would amount to extreme cruelty. Many of these accusations stand in the record undenied and unexplained. Some of them he admitted. For instance, when they were separating, he went into the basement and with an ax destroyed a large quantity of canned fruit. On another occasion, after a quarrel, the plaintiff locked herself in a bedroom and refused to open the door. He took it off its hinges. This conduct discloses an unruly temper and rather indicates that in the frequent quarrels which marred their married life, the defendant, if not the aggressor, at least was quite capable of holding his own.

The defendant had a daughter Gretchen, by his former marriage. She was...