Glazier v. Glazier

Connecticut Superior Court

Glazier v. Glazier

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 25

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1940

DocketFile No. 62725

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 25 (Glazier v. Glazier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

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 defendant, *Page 26 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. VanGuilder, 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

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 defendant, *Page 26 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. VanGuilder, 100 id. 1, 4; McEvoy vs. McEvoy, 99 id. 427, 431;Sweet vs. Sweet, 97 id. 693, 694.

Decree denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glazier-v-glazier-connsuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack