Spaulding v. Spaulding
| Decision Date | 25 October 1892 |
| Docket Number | 15,875 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 224,133 Ind. 122 |
| Parties | Spaulding v. Spaulding |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Overruled December 15, 1892.
From the Wells Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the appellant's motion to modify decree as awards alimony and to vacate and annul that allowance; as to all other matters, the decree is affirmed.
A. L. Sharpe and F. L. Burgan, for appellee.
The appellant petitioned for a divorce from the appellee, charging her with adultery, and the court found that the charge was true. A decree of divorce was granted the appellant, and an allowance of nine hundred dollars, as alimony, was made in favor of the appellee. The question as to the correctness of the part of the decree awarding alimony is well made, and properly saved, and it is the important question in the case.
The evidence shows that the appellee was guilty of many adulterous acts, with many men. Her conduct was that of a woman who had surrendered her person to promiscuous intercourse with men, and who yielded to her passion without restraint, and in utter disregard of her duty to her husband. This is not the case of a single act of adultery, nor the case of continued acts with one man, but it is the case of a woman indulging in repeated and flagrant violations of her wifely vows and duties; nor was there any misconduct on the part of the husband which excused the wife's life of shame; on the contrary, he seems to have borne with her with unusual patience, and to have treated her with kindness. The evidence also shows desertion, and that the appellee left the appellant to live with a paramour. The appellant has property of the probable value of fifteen thousand dollars, but he is in debt to a considerable sum, and his property is incumbered.
In our judgment, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the appellee alimony. We are satisfied that a wife who lives a life of shame, yielding her person to the embraces of different men, has no claim upon the husband she has disgraced to support or maintenance. Her course of life forfeits all claim to the rights of a wife. We do not regard the decision in the case of Cox v. Cox, 25 Ind. 303, as opposed to the conclusion we have stated. A woman who lives a lewd life occupies a very different position from one who retains her chastity, but treats her husband with cruelty. We agree to the doctrine of Hedrick v. Hedrick, 28 Ind. 291, that the allowance of alimony "is not yet controlled by definite rules, and the determination of each case must, therefore depend upon its own circumstances and an enlightened sense of justice and public policy." We can not agree, however, that the doctrine lends support to the appellee's cause. It would be against public policy, and contrary to justice, to compel a husband to contribute to the support of a wife who had deserted him for another, and who had brought shame upon him by lascivious conduct so gross as to bring her down among courtesans. The doctrine of the case of Stock v. Stock, 11 Phila. 324, applies here with controlling force. In speaking of a defendant, who occupied much the same position as that occupied by the defendant in this case, the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial