Ripley v. Ripley
| Decision Date | 17 March 1927 |
| Citation | 259 Mass. 26 |
| Parties | JOSEPH W. RIPLEY v. BERTHA RIPLEY. BERTHA W. RIPLEY v. JOSEPH W. RIPLEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
March 14, 1927.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, PIERCE CARROLL, & WAIT, JJ.
Marriage and Divorce, Condonation. Probate Court, Findings by judge Laches.
Condonation is a state of mind to be determined, at the hearing of a libel for divorce, as a matter of fact from all the evidence including rational inferences.
Findings, by a judge of probate at a hearing of a libel by a husband for divorce by reason of cruel and abusive treatment, upon evidence not reported, that title to the home of the parties was in the libellant; that the libellant and libellee lived separately in the home; that the libellant was a weak debilitated old man; that his wife was healthy, robust and vigorous; that the libellant remained in his home after the last assault relied upon because he was in poor health and emaciated and had no other place to go; and that the libellant did not condone the cruel and abusive treatment on the part of the libellee by thus remaining in his home, were not inconsistent and, upon an appeal from a decree for the libellant, were not disturbed.
The mere facts that a libel by a husband for a divorce on grounds of cruel and abusive treatment suffered in 1920, 1923 and 1924, was dated October
10, 1924, and served on the libellee on January 27, 1925, did not show delay barring its maintenance.
LIBEL, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on January 16, 1925, for divorce on the ground of cruel and abusive treatment. Also a
PETITION for separate maintenance, filed in the same court on March 13, 1926, by the libellee against the libellant.
In the Probate Court, the cases were heard together by McCoole, J. Material facts found by the judge are stated in the opinion. By order of the judge a decree nisi of divorce, and a decree dismissing the petition for separate maintenance were entered. The libellee and petitioner appealed.
The case was submitted on briefs. W.N. Cronin, for Bertha W. Ripley.
J.J. McAnarney, for Joseph W. Ripley.
This is a libel for divorce by a husband against his wife, and a petition for separate support by the wife against the husband. The cases were tried together on the merits. The judge of probate found as a fact that the wife had been guilty of cruel and abusive conduct and ordered a decree in favor of the husband in each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Hanson
...235 Mass. 330, 334, 127 N. E. 420. The conclusion and the decree must stand unless not supported by the facts reported. Ripley v. Ripley, 259 Mass. 26, 155 N. E. 658;Slavinsky v. Slavinsky (Mass.) 190 N. E. 826. The facts thus displayed are that the libellant, a resident of Wellesley in thi......
-
Quigley v. Quigley
... ... Drew v. Drew, 250 Mass. 41 , 45. It is essentially ... and commonly a question of fact. Maglathlin v ... Maglathlin, 138 Mass. 299 , 300. Ripley v ... Ripley, 259 Mass. 26 ... The ... [310 Mass. 418] ... burden of proving it is upon the libellee. Callan v ... Callan, 280 Mass. 37 , 42 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Booth
...wife of the adultery by the husband. Gardner v. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434, 441;Drew v. Drew, 250 Mass. 41, 45, 144 N. E. 763;Ripley v. Ripley, 259 Mass. 26, 27, 155 N. E. 658;Coan v. Coan (Mass.) 162 N. E. 663. Exception taken to this ruling has not been argued and is treated as waived. It is ma......
-
Quigley v. Quigley
...45, 144 N.E. 763, 764. It is essentially and commonly a question of fact. Maglathlin v. Maglathlin, 138 Mass. 299, 300;Ripley v. Ripley, 259 Mass. 26, 155 N.E. 658. The burden of proving it is upon the libellee. Callan v. Callan, 280 Mass. 37, 42, 181 N.E. 736. The evidence is not before us......