Leonard v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 26 February 1890 |
| Citation | 151 Mass. 151,23 N.E. 732 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. LEONARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Baker & Curry, for appellant.
The libelant seeks a divorce from her husband on the ground that he has been sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the state-prison at Waupun, Wis., for a term of seven years and six months, and the question presented to us is whether such a sentence passed in another state is a good cause of divorce here. The Public Statutes (chapter 146, § 2) provide that a divorce may be decreed "when either party has been sentenced to confinement at hard labor for life, or for five years or more, in the state-prison, or in a jail or house of correction." The first statute in this commonwealth making a sentence to imprisonment a cause of divorce was Rev.St. c. 76 § 5, where the language is substantially similar to that quoted above, except that the term prescribed is seven years or more. Desertion was not made a cause of divorce till afterwards, by St.1838, c. 126, and it is therefore apparent that the sentence to imprisonment was not deemed merely to be substantially equivalent to a desertion. It imported an offense the nature of which was known to the legislature. Imprisonment elsewhere might be for a cause punishable here for a less term, or possibly not punishable at all. The term "the state-prison," when used without further description in the Revised Statutes, as well as in the more recent legislation, means the state-prison of this commonwealth. No instance to the contrary has been cited to us, and we do not now recall any. If a state-prison elsewhere was intended, it would be natural to say so in distinct language, as in Rev.St. c. 144, § 34. A sentence to imprisonment elsewhere is not included as a cause of divorce, within the meaning of Pub.St. c. 146, § 2; Martin v. Martin, 47 N.H. 53.
Libel dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturtevant v. Com.
... ... c. 222, §§ 2, ... 3, 8, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, 24; Beard v. City of ... Boston, 151 Mass. 96, 23 N.E. 826; Leonard v ... Leonard, 151 Mass. 151, 23 N.E. 732. The whole ... foundation of the argument fails, and we need not consider ... what force it might have ... ...
-
Ness v. Ness, 9898
...54 A.2d 166; Klutts v. Klutts, 37 Tenn. 423; Kimbro v. Kimbro, 191 Tenn. 316, 232 S.W.2d 354, 19 A.L.R.2d 1045; Leonard v. Leonard, 151 Mass. 151, 23 N.E. 732, 6 L.R.A. 632; Daughdrill v. Daughdrill, 180 Miss. 589, 178 So. 106. See also State v. Duket, 90 Wis. 272, 63 N.W. 83, 31 L.R.A. 515......