Longbotham v. Longbotham

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtSTART
Citation119 Minn. 139,137 N.W. 387
Decision Date02 August 1912
PartiesLONGBOTHAM v. LONGBOTHAM.

119 Minn. 139
137 N.W. 387

LONGBOTHAM
v.
LONGBOTHAM.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 2, 1912.


Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Frederick N. Dickson, Judge.

Action by Bertha Longbotham against Thomas B. Longbotham. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.


Syllabus by the Court

Appeal from a judgment granting the plaintiff an absolute divorce on the ground of defendant's cruel and inhuman treatment of her. Held:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's application to amend his answer on the trial.

Insanity is a defense to an action for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, if at the time the alleged acts of cruelty were committed the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature of his acts or that they were wrong. The evidence is not sufficient to bring this case within this rule.

The district court is authorized to award to the wife as permanent alimony a gross sum and make it a lien on the husband's real estate, or to give her specific part of his real and personal property, or an undivided part or interest in the whole thereof, as may be found for the best interests of the wife under the circumstances of each case.

The findings of fact are justified by the evidence, and they support the conclusions of law and the judgment.


[137 N.W. 388]

Schmidt & Waters, of St. Paul (L. O. Rue, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.

Edward C. Stringer, McNeil V. Seymour, and Edward S. Stringer, all of St. Paul, for respondent.


START, C. J.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court of the county of Ramsey, granting the plaintiff an absolute divorce on the ground of his cruel and inhuman treatment. The complaint alleged that the defendant during the times alleged therein falsely and persistently charged the plaintiff with infidelity and illicit intimacy with another man; that such charges were without any foundation whatever, and were made not only to the plaintiff, but to her sons, neighbors, and others; that on several occasions he threatened to kill her, and did choke and beat her; and, further, that such conduct of the defendant has seriously impaired her health.

These allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer, which alleged, as a counterclaim or cross-bill, that the plaintiff was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of the defendant and had deserted him; that to deprive him of his property and to get possession thereof she, well knowing that he ‘was not insane, is not insane, and never was insane,’ charged him with being insane, and by the perjured testimony of herself and children caused him to be committed to the hospital for the insane at St. Peter.

The reply denied the allegations of the cross-bill and alleged that the defendant in 1909 was duly adjudged insane by the probate court and committed to the asylum for treatment.

On the trial of the cause, and after the plaintiff had rested her case, the defendant offered in evidence the records of the probate court showing that the defendant was committed to the hospital for the insane for treatment. The plaintiff objected to the evidence as a defense to any acts of the defendant on the ground of insanity, for the reason that it was not pleaded, but no objection to the evidence was made if it was offered as tending to prove the allegations of the cross-bill. The objection was sustained. The defendant then asked leave to amend its answer so as to plead insanity as a defense to any alleged acts of cruelty committed prior to his commitment to the hospital. The plaintiff objected to the proposed amendment on the ground that it tendered entirely new issues. The court denied the application, and the defendant excepted to the ruling. The defendant then introduced the records of the probate court, to support the allegations of his cross-bill, which showed that the defendant was adjudge insane and committed to the hospital September 29, 1909, paroled January 21, 1910, and discharged charged April 5, 1910; that he was again...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Stefonick v. Stefonick, No. 8572.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 25 Abril 1946
    ...41 N.E.2d 5;White v. Shalit, 1938, 136 Me. 65, 1 A.2d 765;Bickle v. Bickle, 1936, 196 Minn. 392, 265 N.W. 276;Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387;Tiffin v. Tiffin, 209 Mich. 232, 176 N.W. 435;Hagerty v. Hagerty, 1923, 222 Mich. 166, 192 N.W. 553;Lemp v. Lemp, 249 Mo. 295, ......
  • Loth v. Loth, No. 34778.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 7 Enero 1949
    ...estate separately. Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 28 N.W.2d 164;Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135, 23 N.W.2d 537;Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387. Here, the trial court applied the rule stated. 4. A husband may make a valid gift to his wife of personal property. State v. On......
  • Schuler v. Schuler, No. 29460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1956
    ...three months after the sale of his farm. But this does not establish his incompetency at a prior date.' In Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387, loc. cit. 389, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said: 'The fact that the defendant had been adjudged insane and committed to the ho......
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, No. 37526
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 13 Marzo 1959
    ...v. Limnell, 176 Minn. 393, 223 N.W. 609; Roberts v. Roberts, 135 Minn. 397, 161 N.W. 148, L.R.A.1917C, 1140; Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387; Maki v. Maki, 106 Minn. 357, 119 N.W. 51; Annotation, 54 A.L.R.2d...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Stefonick v. Stefonick, No. 8572.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 25 Abril 1946
    ...41 N.E.2d 5;White v. Shalit, 1938, 136 Me. 65, 1 A.2d 765;Bickle v. Bickle, 1936, 196 Minn. 392, 265 N.W. 276;Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387;Tiffin v. Tiffin, 209 Mich. 232, 176 N.W. 435;Hagerty v. Hagerty, 1923, 222 Mich. 166, 192 N.W. 553;Lemp v. Lemp, 249 Mo. 295, ......
  • Loth v. Loth, No. 34778.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 7 Enero 1949
    ...estate separately. Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 28 N.W.2d 164;Maust v. Maust, 222 Minn. 135, 23 N.W.2d 537;Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387. Here, the trial court applied the rule stated. 4. A husband may make a valid gift to his wife of personal property. State v. On......
  • Schuler v. Schuler, No. 29460
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Mayo 1956
    ...three months after the sale of his farm. But this does not establish his incompetency at a prior date.' In Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387, loc. cit. 389, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said: 'The fact that the defendant had been adjudged insane and committed to the ho......
  • Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, No. 37526
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 13 Marzo 1959
    ...v. Limnell, 176 Minn. 393, 223 N.W. 609; Roberts v. Roberts, 135 Minn. 397, 161 N.W. 148, L.R.A.1917C, 1140; Longbotham v. Longbotham, 119 Minn. 139, 137 N.W. 387; Maki v. Maki, 106 Minn. 357, 119 N.W. 51; Annotation, 54 A.L.R.2d...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT