Slack v. Slack

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Colt, J.
• Citation: Slack v. Slack, 123 Mass. 443 (Mass. 1877)
• Decision Date: 21 December 1877
• Parties: Maria Slack, administratrix, v. Mary A. Slack

123 Mass. 443

Maria Slack, administratrix, v. Mary A. Slack

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

December 21, 1877

Bristol. Appeal from a decree of the Probate Court, made December 1, 1876, allowing $ 350 to Mary A. Slack, as the widow of Welcome A. Slack, upon her petition, dated October 31, 1876, for an allowance out of the estate of her deceased husband.

The appellant, who was administratrix and an heir at law of Welcome A. Slack, filed the following reasons of appeal "1. That the said Mary A. Slack was never lawfully married to said deceased, and is not his widow. 2. That said Mary A. Slack had deserted the said Welcome A. Slack for about fifteen years previous to his decease, and had lived entirely apart from him, was not a member of his family or household at the time of his decease, and had no claim in law or equity to any allowance out of his estate for necessaries if she was ever his lawful wife."

Hearing before Gray C. J., who affirmed the decree of the Probate Court, and, on an appeal being taken to the full court, made for the purposes of the hearing on the appeal, a report of the facts as follows:

"The petitioner was formerly married to Peter Clark, and continued to be his lawful wife until 1855. In 1847, she went to live with the intestate as his housekeeper, and they cohabited as husband and wife from that time until 1858, when they were lawfully married, and afterwards continued to live together as husband and wife for about two years. Difficulties arising between them on account of his gross and confirmed habits of intoxication, which had existed throughout their cohabitation, they agreed that she should live apart from him for a year and then return. Before she actually went away, he withdrew his consent and urged her to remain, but she insisted on leaving him according to their agreement, and went to live with her daughter by the first marriage in another town. At the expiration of the year she returned to his house, but, finding that he had obtained another housekeeper, with whom she believed him to be living in adultery, (there being no bed in the house but his own and a lounge in his room,) she went away again and never returned or was asked by him to return, and continued to live apart rendering him no services and supporting herself, until his death. She has no children by him, is in her seventieth year, and has no means of support.

"The appellant objected that it did not appear that the assets in her hands as administratrix were sufficient, and offered to prove that, by reason of their turning out to be of less value than was stated in her inventory, they were insufficient to pay the allowance ordered by the Probate Court. But it appeared that she had not rendered any account. And it was ruled that the objection was not open, and the evidence not admissible, under...