Lewis v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 18 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 124
• Parties: JOHN MERRITT LEWIS <I>vs.</I> ELLA E. LEWIS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 124

JOHN MERRITT LEWISvs.

ELLA E. LEWIS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 18, 1890.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, where the action (brought to annul the marriage of the parties) was tried by Lochren, J. The defendant was served by publication, etc., and did not appear in the action.

J. M. Shaw and J. R. Corrigan, for appellant.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The statute in relation to divorces (Gen. St. 1878, c. 62, § 2) provides that "when either of the parties * * * for want of age or understanding, is incapable of assenting thereto, * * * the marriage shall be void from the time its nullity is declared by a court of competent authority." Certain limitations are imposed by sections 4 and 5, as follows: "Nor shall the marriage of any insane person be adjudged void after his restoration to reason if it appears that the parties freely cohabited together as husband and wife after such insane person was restored to a sound mind." "Sec. 5. No marriage shall be adjudged a nullity at the suit of the party capable of contracting, on the ground that the other party was * * * insane, if such * * * insanity was known to the party capable of contracting, at the time of such marriage." There are no other provisions on the subject of insanity, and no form of insanity or insane delusion is included in the list of causes for divorce; and insanity arising subsequent to the marriage affords no ground for divorce. The section first quoted is simply declaratory of the common law. There must have been, at the time of the marriage, such want of understanding as to render the party incapable of assenting to the contract of marriage. The plaintiff applies for a decree of nullity on the ground of his wife's insanity at the time of his marriage, of which he claims to have then had no knowledge. The particular form of insanity alleged was a morbid propensity on the part of the wife to steal, commonly denominated "kleptomania." It was not proved, nor is it found by the court, that she was not otherwise sane, or that her mind was so affected by this peculiar propensity as to be incapable of understanding or assenting to the marriage contract. Whether the subjection of the will to some vice or uncontrollable impulse, appetite, passion, or propensity be attributed to disease, and be considered a species of insanity, or not, yet as long as the understanding and reason remain so far unaffected and unclouded that the afflicted person is cognizant of the nature and obligations of a contract entered into by him or her with another, the case is not one authorizing a decree avoiding the contract. Any other rule would open the door to great abuses. Anon., 4 Pick. 32; St. George v. Biddeford, 76 Me. 593; Durham v. Durham, 10 Prob Div. 80. For a...