Smith v. Smith, Civil 4532

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtROSS, J.
Citation61 Ariz. 373,149 P.2d 683
PartiesBETH SMITH, Appellant, v. SAM R. SMITH, Appellee
Decision Date12 June 1944
Docket NumberCivil 4532

149 P.2d 683

61 Ariz. 373

BETH SMITH, Appellant,

SAM R. SMITH, Appellee

Civil No. 4532

Supreme Court of Arizona

June 12, 1944

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. Richard Lamson, Judge. Judgment modified and affirmed.

Mr. W. H. Chester, for Appellant.

Messrs. Ewing & Franks, for Appellee.



The parties hereto were married December 24, 1928, in Phoenix, Arizona. They have two children the issue of said marriage, Andrew, aged six, and Sammy Joyce, aged five. The action is for divorce and custody of the children by the husband Sam R. Smith, and was commenced June 21, 1941, in the superior court of Yavapai County, alleging as grounds therefor that the defendant has been guilty [61 Ariz. 374] of excess and cruel treatment towards the plaintiff in this, that the wife and mother Beth Smith in 1934 became affiliated with an organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses, a sect of religious fanatics whose methods of propagating their beliefs are so aggressive, obnoxious and obtrusive as to arouse resentment and physical violence on the part of the public. He further alleges defendant refused to live with him at their home in Mayer, Arizona, where he was engaged in mining, claiming her religious work demanded that she reside in the city of Prescott, where she was engaged in spending her time calling on the public and distributing Witnesses' literature, to the great annoyance of plaintiff's friends and acquaintances who requested plaintiff to keep her away from them, to his extreme embarrassment and grievous mental suffering; that in aid of her religious activities she used the two minor children to distribute literature and exposed them to probable physical violence; that she has not properly fed nor cared for the children, and will not permit them to salute the American flag. Plaintiff alleges he has arranged for a proper home for the children and for their education.

The defendant moved that all of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint concerning her religious attitude be stricken as improper and as no ground for divorce. [149 P.2d 684] The motions were denied, whereupon she filed an answer, charging plaintiff with cruelty towards her in "that he has constantly cursed and abused this defendant and cross-complainant and has threatened her with bodily injury." She further charges plaintiff with habitual intemperance and as not a fit person to have the care of the children. She alleges that he is an able-bodied man, earning approximately the sum of $300 per month. She asks...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Ormachea v. Ormachea, 3575
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • 17 Abril 1950
    ...conduct which destroys the legitimate objects and ends of the marriage. Hassell v. Hassell, 185 Okl. 154, 90 P.2d 885; Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683; Stegmeir v. Stegmeir, 158 Kan. 511, 148 P.2d 755; Holloman [67 Nev. 282] v. Holloman, 49 N.M. 288, 162 P.2d 782. This court has ......
  • Muhammad v. Muhammad, 92-CA-470
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 5 Agosto 1993
    ...(1969); Golden v. Arons, 36 N.J.Super. 371, 115 A.2d 639 (1955); Mertens v. Mertens, 38 Wash.2d 55, 227 P.2d 724 (1951); Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683 (1944); Wilson v. Wilson, 58 Cal.App.2d 641, 137 P.2d 700 (1943); Krauss v. Krauss, 163 La. 218, 111 So. 683 (1927). In Sinclai......
  • Meredith v. Meredith, 9765
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 22 Noviembre 1967
    ...Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash. 2d 315, 133 P.2d 526 (1943); Cory v. Cory, 70 Cal.App.2d 563, 161 P.2d 385 (1945). Contra see: Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683 (1944); Commonwealth ex rel. Derr v. Dree, 148 Pa.Super. 511, 25 A.2d 769 (1942); Salvaggio v. Barnett, 248 S.W.2d 244 However, ......
  • M--- L--- B--- v. W--- R--- B---, 8924
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Agosto 1970 has been held (soundly, we think) that neither past delinquency (24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 802, p. 912--see Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683(2, 3); Kennard v. Kennard, 87 N.H. 320, 179 A. 414, 417--418(1)), nor former conviction and confinement (Radford v. Matczuk, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT