Burke v. Burke

270 Mass. 449
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 270 Mass. 449 (Burke v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burke v. Burke, 270 Mass. 449 (Mass. 1930).

Opinion

Wait, J.

This is an appeal by a husband from a decree of a probate court adjudging that the wife is justifiably living apart, restraining him from interfering with her per[454]*454sonal liberty and ordering him to pay her each week $30 for her support and that of their minor child.

We discover no error of law. The report of facts found by the judge shows no such conduct of the husband as would require a decree for divorce. It discloses a petulant wife; and a husband unable or unwilling to yield legal rights in order to give her happiness or to relieve nervous strain due, possibly, to unreasonable demands on her part, which, however, affectionate demeanor on his part might overcome. We cannot properly say that the judge was wrong in finding that the husband’s conduct, though not illegal, so affects the wife’s health that her conduct in leaving him was not wrongful and that she is justifiably living apart from him. Conduct which will not justify divorce may be sufficient ground for a decree for separate maintenance. Turner v. Turner, 234 Mass. 37. Lyster v. Lyster, 111 Mass. 327. See Murray v. Murray, 255 Mass. 19, and Goldberg v. Goldberg, 237 Mass. 279, 280.

The judge was not bound to make the rulings requested. Remaining with the husband was not necessarily condonation requiring that the wife’s petition be dismissed. Ripley v. Ripley, 259 Mass. 26. The facts reported would sustain findings that any condonation was conditional and that the conditions were not fulfilled. Most of the rulings requested were immaterial. Although a husband may possess the legal rights set out in the requests, the exercise of them, in circumstances such as the judge found to exist,” may, nevertheless, justify the wife, where her health suffers as a consequence, in withdrawal, at least for a time, from the home. The report does not show whether they were given or refused. The appellant has not been prejudiced, whatever disposition was made of them.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hano v. Hano
367 N.E.2d 1190 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1977)
Anderson v. Anderson
238 N.E.2d 868 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Holland v. Holland
146 N.E.2d 917 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Turgeon v. Turgeon
108 N.E.2d 532 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1952)
Hayden v. Hayden
96 N.E.2d 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Russell v. Russell
72 A.2d 640 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1950)
Heath v. Heath
89 N.E.2d 338 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Bulkowski v. Bulkowski
89 N.E.2d 206 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Bowman v. Bowman
89 N.E.2d 219 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Quigley v. Quigley
38 N.E.2d 624 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Cochrane v. Cochrane
22 N.E.2d 6 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Bradford v. Bradford
4 N.E.2d 1005 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Krasnow v. Krasnow
182 N.E. 338 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Giles v. Giles
181 N.E. 505 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Burke v. Burke
174 N.E. 277 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 Mass. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-burke-mass-1930.