Taylor v. Taylor

Decision Date13 December 1966
Citation225 A.2d 196,154 Conn. 340
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesShirley R. TAYLOR v. Robert W. TAYLOR.

Herbert D. Fischer, West Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Charles H. Fischer, Jr., West Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Gordon R. Raynor, Hamden, for appellee (defendant).

Chief Justice KING and Associate Justices ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN of the Supreme Court, concurring.

RYAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff brought this action, seeking a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging intolerable cruelty on the part of the plaintiff. The court found the issues for the defendant on the complaint and on the counterclaim and granted him a decree of divorce. The plaintiff assigns error in the failure of the trial court to find the material facts set forth in numerous paragraphs of the draft finding which she claims were admitted or undisputed. A fact is not admitted or undisputed merely because it has not been contradicted. The question of credibility is for the trier. Jarrett v. Jarrett, 151 Conn. 180, 181, 195 A.2d 430; Shakro v. Haddad, 149 Conn. 160, 162, 177 A.2d 221; Brown v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 145 Conn. 290, 293, 141 A.2d 634. The plaintiff also claims that numerous paragraphs of the finding were found without evidence. The finding is quite lengthy and detailed. The few corrections to which the plaintiff is entitled are of minor importance and would not change the result in any way. Sipp v. Sipp, 151 Conn. 705, 197 A.2d 73.

It is not necessary to recite the extensive finding. The following is a summary of the facts found: The plaintiff constantly nagged the defendant. She had a very bad temper and would become angry with him easily and often. For example, she became angry at the defendant simply because he attempted to teach their child the alphabet while the child was in kindergarten. Over a period of five or six years the plaintiff made wrongful accusations against the defendant. During the last three years that the parties lived together, the plaintiff refused to do housework, and the defendant was obliged to do it himself. She would not even make him a sandwich to take to work each day. From the winter of 1956 until the fall of 1957 she refused to have sexual relations with him. She permitted it once in September, 1957, and from that time until she left the defendant in March, 1963, a period of five and one-half years, she persistently refused to have relations with him although they slept in the same bed. After the plaintiff left the defendant, he became ill and consulted a physician because of high blood pressure. He had to take medication, including tranquilizers. He tried, on numerous occasions, to talk to the plaintiff about a reconciliation, but she refused. Although the defendant wanted a reconciliation, he was not willing to agree to one unless the plaintiff changed her conduct toward him. Her treatment of the defendant during the marriage affected his mental and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Brockett v. Jensen
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1966
  • Garrison v. Garrison
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1983
    ...v. VanGuilder, 100 Conn. 1, 3, 122 A. 719 (1923); Gowdy v. Gowdy, 120 Conn. 508, 510, 181 A. 462 (1935); see Taylor v. Taylor, 154 Conn. 340, 342-43, 225 A.2d 196 (1966). The trial court found that beginning in early 1979 the defendant's "attitude toward both the plaintiff and his children ......
  • State v. MacGregor
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • November 29, 1968
    ...is the final arbiter of the credibility of witnesses. Drazen Lumber Co. v. Casner, 156 Conn. 401, 403, 242 A.2d 754; Taylor v. Taylor, 154 Conn. 340, 341, 225 A.2d 196; Jarrett v. Jarrett, 151 Conn. 180, 181, 195 A.2d 430; State v. White, 155 Conn. 122, 123, 230 A.2d 18. We do not retry the......
  • Jensen v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1969
  • 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