Pitts v. Pitts

• Decision Date: 07 December 1942
• Docket Number: 21-23.
• Parties: PITTS v. PITTS (three cases).
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

29 A.2d 300

181 Md. 182

PITTS v. PITTS (three cases).

Nos. 21-23.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 7, 1942

H Courtenay Jenifer, of Towson, and F. Neal Parke, of Westminster, for appellant in all three cases.

Hilary W. Gans, of Baltimore, for appellee in all three cases.

Before SLOAN, JOHNSON, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, and MARBURY, JJ.

COLLINS Judge.

These are appeals, docketed as three cases, from two orders passed March 10, 1942, and a decree passed March 23, 1942, by the Circuit Court of Baltimore County. The decree granted a divorce a mensa et thoro to Mai Norris Pitts, appellee, from her husband, Tilghman G. Pitts, Jr., appellant, provided that the appellant pay the appellee $50 per month for the infant child of the parties, Mai Garesche Pitts, and awarded the custody of that infant child to the appellee and allowed the appellant to visit this child at stated intervals jurisdiction of the Court over the infant was continued, and the husband was ordered to pay the costs. The three cases are considered together here.

The appellant and the appellee were married on February 1, 1936. At the time of this appeal, he was twenty-eight years of age and she, twenty-seven. At the time of the marriage and at the time of this appeal, he was employed by a banking institution in Baltimore at a very moderate salary. The wife apparently from the record before her marriage, was in excellent health and took a prominent part in athletics in school. After the marriage, they went to live with his father and mother, Mr and Mrs. Tilghman G. Pitts, Sr., at their beautiful home in Dulaney Valley near Baltimore, where they stayed for a few months. They then moved to various apartments in Baltimore, returning during part of the time to the home of his father and mother.

From 1937 until the beginning of this litigation, the appellee, Mrs. Pitts, underwent three operations and previous to the birth of their daughter in March of 1940, had grippe and pyelitis and was in the hospital for about four months. Two or three weeks after the birth of the child, the baby and its mother returned to the Pitts home in Dulaney Valley, where the wife continued in bad health. In June of 1940 the father, mother, and baby removed to a home in Lutherville and on account of unsatisfactory servants and the health of the mother, after two days there, they all returned to the home of the appellant's father and mother, where the child and the appellant remained until September 1st. In August of that year, for the benefit of her health, and with the approval of her physician and her husband, the appellee went to York Harbor, Maine, with her grandmother. During that time her husband corresponded with her frequently and it is significant that he did not keep copies of the letters which he wrote to her. She corresponded with her husband, not keeping copies of her letters, and shortly before her return, she wrote him stating that her health was still very much impaired and suggested the suspension of marriage relations until her health improved.

On September 1, 1940, she returned to Baltimore, was met at the station by her husband, and fater having dinner together, they returned to the home at Lutherville. The wish expressed by the wife in her letter was not regarded. The appellant and the appellee again set up their home in Lutherville, the child having been brought from the home of its paternal grandparents. On the morning of September 4th, the servant not appearing for work, the wife became very nervous and upset. Later in the morning and after her husband had gone to his work, she returned the child to the home of its paternal grandparents, and she went to the home of her mother, Mrs. Griffith. Her mother, who had strenuously opposed the marriage, called the appellant on the telephone and informed him that her daughter had come to her senses and had left him to come to her home, and she was going to send out for the clothes and the baby. Mrs. Griffith, at that time, refused to allow appellant to speak to his wife. In the afternoon, the appellee, accompanied by a young girl friend, drove down to the office of the appellant. He was called outside and got in the back seat of the car and appellee told her husband that she was going to see Dr. Richards, a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, about her health. After several visits to Dr. Richards, on September 16, 1940, she went to the Phipps Clinic, where she remained under treatment until October 14th of that year. When she returned to the home of her mother and after being there for a few days, her friend, Miss Etelka Hoen, observing that she had no appetite, was morbid, depressed and thin, invited her to stay with her on her mother's farm for a month, where she could get plenty of milk, fresh air, and exercise. During all the time that the appellee was in the Hopkins Hospital and at the Hoen home, her husband visited her frequently. After October 15th, he wanted her to come back and live with him in normal marital relationship, but insisted that the child remain with the paternal grandparents, where she was getting excellent care. He corresponded with her frequently, although she was living near him, but we must note that after October 15, 1940, he kept carbon copies of all the letters he wrote to his wife. The appellee remained at the Hoen home until after Christmas. The appellant and the appellee had Thanksgiving dinner together at a hotel in Baltimore and the husband testifies that at that time, the wife agreed to come back to him, provided he would furnish the necessary servants and provided that they would occupy separate rooms and not resume marital relationship. The husband testified that at Christmas, when he asked his wife what present she would like, she said she preferred curtains for the house at Lutherville. From this remark, at that time, apparently, she had no intention of leaving her husband. On January 1, 1941, the wife went to the home at Lutherville and cleaned it up.

Early in January the husband and wife met and he stated that she wanted to take the baby to her mother's house, while she stated that she wanted to take the baby to the home at Lutherville. The husband wanted the baby left with his mother and father, and the wife then said that she would see a lawyer about it. The husband, through his solicitor, on January 15, 1941, then filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in Equity alleging that the appellee was not capable of caring for the infant child and that it would be detrimental to the best interest of the infant child to be removed from the home of her paternal grandparents. The petition prayed that the Court assume jurisdiction over the infant and the care and custody be awarded to the appellant. The wife, reading in the newspapers about the allegations her husband had made against her, was very indignant. On January 21, 1941, she went to the Lutherville home, accompanied by her step-father, and with a moving van, removed all her effects from that house and carried them to the home of her mother. On February 28, 1941, an answer to the petition for custody was filed by the wife. On April 10th the husband filed a bill for divorce a mensa et thoro, which was answered by the wife on May 19th. After a hearing on the custody petition before Judge William H. Lawrence, a decree was signed by him on July 28, 1941, awarding the custody of the child to the father. The Chancellor concluded from the testimony before him that the mental make-up and emotional equipment of Mrs. Mai Pitts at that time was such that, without assistance and supervision, she was not independently capable of properly caring for her daughter. On November 5, 1941, a cross bill for divorce a mensa et thoro was filed by the wife, appellee, which was later amended by leave of Court. Various other pleadings were filed, a recital of which is not necessary here. On February 27, 1942, a petition was filed by the appellee asking for consolidation of the custody case previously decided by Judge Lawrence, with the bill for partial divorce on the grounds of desertion filed by the husband, and with the amended cross bill of complaint filed by the wife for partial divorce and alimony. A demurrer to this petition was filed by the appellant and the case coming before Judge C. Gus Grason, the demurrer was overruled on March 10, 1942, and an appeal taken to this Court from that ruling. A demurrer was filed to the amendment of the wife's cross bill. This was overruled by Judge Grason by an order passed on March 10, 1942, and an appeal taken to this Court from that order. The custody case, petition for divorce a mensa et thoro on behalf of the husband, and the cross bill for divorce a mensa et thoro on behalf of the wife were ordered consolidated. After subsequent pleadings, the husband was allowed to amend his bill by interlineation, changing the prayer for relief to divorce a vinculo matrimonii with the allegation that the separation had continued for the statutory period of eighteen months. The case then proceeded to a hearing.

The filing of the bill for custody by the husband in January 1941, alleging that she was incapable of caring for her child, highly offended the appellee. There is evidence in the record that in June, 1941, before the decision in the custody case had been filed, she offered to return to the appellant without any conditions, the child not being a part of the consideration, according to the testimony of her solicitor at that time. The husband did not accede to that request. In December, 1941, a minister from a church in Towson endeavored to effect a reconciliation between the parties, but the husband did not want the reconciliation and gave as his excuse that he did not think that she was...