Sapp v. Sapp
| Decision Date | 09 October 1888 |
| Citation | 9 S.W. 258 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAPP <I>v.</I> SAPP. |
Appeal from district court, Shelby county; JAMES I. PERKINS, Judge.
Action for divorce by B. D. Sapp against Caroline Sapp, on the ground of cruel treatment. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Field & Oliver and H. E. Short, for appellant.
This is a suit for a divorce brought by the husband, who is appellant here, against the wife. The ground of the action was cruel treatment. The plaintiff proved that he had been to his wife a kind and dutiful husband, but that, while his wife was suffering from an attack of pleurisy, she refused to drink a cup of coffee he had prepared for her, at her request, until he had drunk from the cup himself; and that she charged, in substance, that he was attempting to take her life, and wished to poison her. One Mrs. Holden, who was a witness in the case, was present, attending upon Mrs. Sapp at the time. No other person was present, except the parties to this suit. Mrs. Holden, after the wife's refusal to drink the coffee prepared by the husband, prepared another cup, which Mrs. Sapp drank, but not until the husband had first drunk a portion of it. Shortly after this the wife declared her intention to go to her children, who, it seems, lived at her own house, and the husband, finding his remonstrances unavailing, finally removed her. This was in November, 1886. In July of the following year he went to her, and entreated her to return to his house. This she refused, offering to live with him at her own house. He then proposed to procure a residence in a neighboring town, if she would live with him, but this she also refused. The physician who attended Mrs. Sapp during her illness testified that he saw no signs of mental aberration, although he stated that the disease is accompanied by fever, which sometimes produces "flightiness" and sometimes delirium. We think the court did not err in holding the evidence insufficient to warrant a divorce. It is unnecessary to enter upon any extended discussion of the law as applicable to these facts. Compared with the rulings in other states, our courts have given a most liberal construction to our statutes defining the grounds of divorce. They hold that, to constitute such cruelty as will authorize a divorce, it is not necessary that physical injury should be inflicted or threatened, but that mental suffering, when intentionally imposed, may be so grievous and lasting as to warrant a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. Wright v. Wright, 6 Tex. 3; Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79; Taylor v. Taylor, 18...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caywood v. Caywood
...we do not construe the Eastman Case as so holding. As illustrating Judge Gaines' view of the question under discussion, in Sapp v. Sapp, 71 Tex. 348, 9 S. W. 258, Judge Gaines says: "Compared with the rulings in other states, our courts have given a most liberal construction to our statutes......
-
McNabb v. McNabb
...350, as if it might be deemed an act of cruelty; but it was held that the allegation was not sufficiently proved." See, also, Sapp v. Sapp, 71 Tex. 348, 9 S. W. 258; McAlister v. McAlister, 71 Tex. 695, 10 S. W. Though the statute may allow a divorce for conduct inflicting mental pain or di......
-
McNabb v. McNabb
...The law looks with more indulgence upon the conduct of a sick wife toward her husband than when both parties are normal. Sapp v. Sapp, 71 Tex. 348, 9 S. W. 258. Subdivisions 2 and 3 of article 4631, V. S. C. S., show that the lawmaking body has been extremely partial to the husband in the m......
-
Bethel v. Bethel
...31 Vt. 328; Cohn v. Cohn, 85 Cal. 108; Tiffany v. Tiffany, 84 La. 122; Wertz v. Werts, 43 La. 534; Powell v. Powell, 18 Kan. 371; Sapp v. Sapp, 71 Tex. 348. (3) A granting or refusing a divorce on evidence which is conflicting will not be disturbed. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 29 Mo. 95; Endsle......