Glazier v. Glazier

9 Conn. Supp. 25, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 193
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided November 23, 1940·No. File No. 62725·Published

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The transcript of the evidence has been carefully examined. It describes a course of treatment on the part of defendant which was mean, shabby and, undoubtedly, inductive to much distress to plaintiff. However, it is apparent that bad as it was the plaintiff did not leave the defend[26]*26ant, but, on the contrary, he left her. It is impossible for the court to conclude that since the plaintiff was willing to go on living with the defendant, his mistreatment of her had reached the point where it had become intolerable. Without it had, there is no cause of action on the ground of intolerable cruelty. Purcell vs. Purcell, 101 Conn. 422, 426; Van Guilder vs. Van Guilder, 100 id. 1, 4; McEvoy vs. McEvoy, 99 id. 427, 431; Sweet vs. Sweet, 97 id. 693, 694.

Decree denied.

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

Glazier v. Glazier, 9 Conn. Supp. 25, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 193 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

9 Conn. Supp. 25 (Glazier v. Glazier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Purcell v. Purcell
126 A. 353 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1924)