Waterhouse v. Waterhouse
| Decision Date | 28 November 1916 |
| Parties | WATERHOUSE v. WATERHOUSE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; John D. McLaughlin, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Lillian E. Waterhouse against Martin V. B. Waterhouse. On report from the Superior Court of a decree continuing the case on the docket, and relevant to custody and support of minor children at the request of petitioner. Decree reversed and a decree ordered, granting a divorce with such provision as to custody and support of minor children as the court may direct.
H. T. Richardson, of Boston, for libellant.
This is a libel for divorce. There was a finding in the superior court that cruel and abusive treatment, one of the causes for divorce alleged in the libel, was sustained by evidence of acts committed by the libelee in and prior to 1913, when a separation occurred; that thereafter the libellant condoned this cause upon condition that, upon her returning to live with him, he would treat her properly; and that in 1914 the libellee committed a breach of the condition on which the libellant had condoned the previous misconduct of the libellee; and that thereupon her right to prosecute the libellee for cruel and abusive treatment was revived. The libellee filed an answer alleging by way of recrimination that the libellant was guilty of adultery. While finding against this allegation, the judge found that in her behavior toward another man she had been regardless of ordinary property. There are two young children, one of whom is now in the custody of the mother, and the other of the father. A decree was entered, which is printed in a footnote.1
The question presented is whether, when it has been found that a statutory ground for divorce has been proved, and counter charges against the libellant are not proved, the judge has a right to refuse to grant the divorce and continue the libel from time to time without final action simply upon his own choice or preference of what ought to be done. The decision turns upon the true construction of R. L. c. 152, § 17.2 This section does not confer upon the judge, after he has heard the libel and decided that the libellant is entitled to a decree, power to refuse to enter a decree and to continue the case indefinitely. A proceeding for divorce is not according to the common law. It is in this commonwealth entirely the creature of statute. Robbins v. Robbins, 140 Mass. 528, 530, 5 N. E. 837,54 Am. Rep. 488. The instant section was not intended to render the granting of libels in all cases entirely discretionary with the court. When a case has been heard and a finding made that the libellant has proved a case for divorce and has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddington v. Reddington
...A judge has no discretion in granting or denying a divorce, but must take the statute as his only compass and chart. Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 225 Mass. 228, 114 N.E. 283;Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312 Mass. 165, 168, 43 N.E.2d 779. A divorce is not to be denied merely because the conduct of the......
-
Reddington v. Reddington
... ... [1] A judge has no discretion in ... granting or denying a divorce, but must take the statute as ... his only compass and chart. Waterhouse v ... Waterhouse, 225 Mass. 228 ... Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312 ... Mass. 165, 168. A divorce is not to be denied merely because ... the conduct of ... ...
-
Davisson v. Davisson
...divorce to a complainant who has proven grounds therefor. Cushman v. Cushman, 194 Mass. 38, 79 N.E. 809 (1907). Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 225 Mass. 228, 230, 114 N.E. 283 (1916); Reddington v. Reddington, supra, 317 Mass. at 764, 59 N.E.2d 775. Collis v. Collis, 355 Mass. 25, 27, 242 N.E.2d......
-
Field v. Field
...This principle applies in general to all proceedings in the courts. This principle applies to libels for divorce. Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 225 Mass. 228, 114 N. E. 283. See De Ferrari v. De Ferrari, 220 Mass. 38, 107 N. E. 404;Malcolm v. Malcolm, 257 Mass. 225, 153 N. E. 461. Courts of equ......