Miller v. Miller
| Decision Date | 13 November 1889 |
| Citation | 150 Mass. 111,22 N.E. 765 |
| Parties | MILLER v. MILLER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Morton & Jennings, for plaintiff.
Benj. F. Butler and F.L. Washburn, for defendant.
By a decree of the probate court in force at the time of the hearing in this case, it was adjudged that the libelee was living apart from her husband for justifiable cause. The court had jurisdiction of the case and of the parties, and the decree has the same binding effect as if it were made by any other court of competent jurisdiction. Pierce v. Prescott, 128 Mass. 140; Smith v. Rice, 11 Mass. 507; Emery v. Hildreth, 2 Gray, 228; McKim v. Doane, 137 Mass. 195. The fact determined by it is inconsistent with the necessary allegation in the libel that the libelee previously had utterly deserted the libelant, and was then continuing such desertion. Utter desertion, which is recognized by the statute as a cause for divorce, is a marital wrong. Because the deserter is a wrong-doer, the law gives the deserted party a right to a divorce. If a wife leaves her husband for a justifiable cause it is not utter desertion within the meaning of the statute,[1] and a wife who has utterly deserted her husband, and is living apart from him in continuance of such desertion, cannot be found to be so living for justifiable cause. Pidge v. Pidge, 3 Metc. 261; Fera v. Fera, 98 Mass. 155; Lyster v. Lyster, 111 Mass. 327. The court should have ruled as requested by the libelee, that the decree of the probate court was a bar to the maintenance of this libel. Exceptions sustained.
---------
Notes:
[1] Pub.St. c. 146, § 1.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claffey v. Fenelon
...127 Mass. 414; Chandler Will Case, 102 Me. 72, 101, 66 A. 215. There is nothing inconsistent with this conclusion in Miller v. Miller, 150 Mass. 111, 22 N. E. 765,Willwerth v. Leonard, 156 Mass. 277, 31 N. E. 299, and Chase v. Chase, 216 Mass. 394, 103 N. E. 857, upon which the proponents r......
-
Darden v. Darden
... ... Kyle v. Kyle, 52 N.J.Eq. 710, 29 A. 316; ... [21 So.2d 550] ... People v. Cullen, 153 N.Y. 629, 47 N.E. 894, 44 ... L.R.A. 420; Miller v. Miller, 150 Mass. 111, 22 N.E ... 765; Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, 340, 25 S.Ct ... 679, 49 L.Ed. 1066; 17 Am.Jur. p. 396, § 487 ... ...
-
Williamson v. Williamson
...not be attacked collaterally and was, so long as it stood, res judicata as to all issues involved in that proceeding. Miller v. Miller, 150 Mass. 111, 22 N. E. 765;Austin v. Austin, 233 Mass. 528, 124 N. E. 421. But the principle of these decisions does not prevent the probate court itself ......
-
Matlock v. Matlock
...are these: Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, 25 S.Ct. 679, 49 L.Ed. 1066; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195; Miller v. Miller, 150 Mass. 111; [1] White v. Ladd, 41 Or. 324, 68 P. 739, 93 Am. Rep. 732; Salene v. Isherwood, 74 Or. 35, 144 [86 Or. 82] P. 1175; Colgan v. Farm......