Lockridge v. Lockridge

• Decision Date: 18 April 1835
• Citation: 33 Ky. 28
• Parties: Lockridge v. Lockridge.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

33 Ky. 28

Lockridge v. Lockridge.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 18, 1835

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY.

Mr Owsley and Mr. Monroe for Plaintiff.

Mr Hanson and Mr. Apperson for Defendant.

OPINION

ROBERTSON CHIEF JUSTICE:

Decree for Alimony.

On a bill for alimony, the Circuit Court decreed to the defendant in error, during her life, one-third of the personalty, land and slaves of her husband; who now seeks a reversal of the decree on two grounds: to wit, first--because the defendant was entitled to no decree; and, second--because the decree rendered is excessive in amount, and erroneous in detail.

Adopting the civil law, in this particular, the Ecclesiastical Courts of England, and the Chancery Courts of this country have, not unfrequently, granted divorces a mensa et thoro, and secured alimony to wives whose husbands had treated them barbarously or cruelly. And, without the statute of 1800, we should not doubt the power of the Chancellor, in this State to decree alimony, for such cruel treatment by the husband as would render a separation proper.

Courts of Chancery in this country, like Ecclesiastical courts in England, grant divorces a mensa et thoro, and decree alimony to wives cruelly treated by their husbands.

The proofs in this case are not perfectly satisfactory. They present the but too common case of an intemperate and turbulent husband--violent and reckless when drunk, and occasionally kind and repentant when sober; sometimes assailing, in a violent and most vulgar manner, an amiable and inoffensive wife, and sometimes promising reformation and caressing her with an imploring but transient fondness.

Violent, scandalous conduct of a husband when drunk, towards a wife of unexceptionable deportment--though he is good natured and kind when sober; held to be sufficient cause for a diverce a mensa et thoro, and alimony.

But, though the question of alimony, on the facts exhibited, is somewhat vexatious, we are inclined to the opinion, that the good conduct of the wife is satisfactorily established, and that, under the dominion of such husband, however good natured and kind when sober and pleased, she would have no assuring hope of being either happy or altogether safe. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that a case of that kind of severity or cruelty denominated saevitia, and which, according to the civil law, and the spirit and object of the statute of 1800 of this State, will authorize a decree for alimony, has been made out; and that, being now separated for sufficient cause, it is not the duty of the defendant to return and cohabit with the plaintiff; consequently, we can not disapprove so much of the decree of the court below as decided that she was entitled to alimony.

But there are two strong objections to the character and details of the decree; first--that the measure, and, second--that the kind of allowance decreed are not such as, in a case of alimony merely, precedents or propriety will sanction.

Alimony is the maintenance secured by judicial authority, during a coverture, or until reconciliation. There being no divorce a vinculo it can...