Handy v. Handy

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Handy v. Handy

124 Mass. 394, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 332

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 3, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 124 Mass. 394 (Handy v. Handy) 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

Handy v. Handy, 124 Mass. 394, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 332 (Mass. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

By the Gen. Sts. e. 107, § 6, a sentence to imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison for five years or more is classed with adultery and other causes which are grounds for a divorce from the bond of matrimony. A person who has been so sentenced has been guilty of an offence of the same class and degree, under our divorce act, as one who has committed adultery. As soon as the libellant had been so sentenced, the right of his wife to apply for an absolute divorce was complete. It was therefore rightly ruled that he was not entitled to a divorce for her subsequent adultery. Hall v. Hall, 4 Allen, 39. Clapp v. Clapp, 97 Mass. 531. Nagel v. Nagel, 12 Misso. 53. Conant v. Conant, 10 Cal. 249. Adams v. Adams, 2 C. E. Green, 324, 328. See also Yeatman v. Yeatman, L. R. 1 P. & D. 489; Lempriere v. Lempriere, L. R. 1 P. & D. 569.

Sxeeptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

By the Gen. Sts. e. 107, § 6, a sentence to imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison for five years or more is classed with adultery and other causes which are grounds for a divorce from the bond of matrimony. A person who has been so sentenced has been guilty of an offence of the same class and degree, under our divorce act, as one who has committed adultery. As soon as the libellant had been so sentenced, the right of his wife to apply for an absolute divorce was complete. It was therefore rightly ruled that he was not entitled to a divorce for her subsequent adultery. Hall v. Hall, 4 Allen, 39. Clapp v. Clapp, 97 Mass. 531. Nagel v. Nagel, 12 Misso. 53. Conant v. Conant, 10 Cal. 249. Adams v. Adams, 2 C. E. Green, 324, 328. See also Yeatman v. Yeatman, L. R. 1 P. & D. 489; Lempriere v. Lempriere, L. R. 1 P. & D. 569.

Sxeeptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Mass. 394, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handy-v-handy-mass-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack