Kline v. Kline

15 N.W. 541, 50 Mich. 438, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 828
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 25, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 541 (Kline v. Kline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kline v. Kline, 15 N.W. 541, 50 Mich. 438, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 828 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Graves, C. J.

For nearly half a century these parties [439]*439have lived together in wedlock, and now in their old age an attempt is made to procure a dissolution of the marriage. The cause comes here after a dismissal of the bill by the circuit judge.

The application is based on two grounds : First, that the defendant has become an habitual drunkard; second, that'he has been guilty of extreme cruelty.

It is evident that the parties are not specially refined, and that their ways of life and habits of speech ought not to be tried by the standard of manners and conversation peculiar to very cultivated people. The only just and safe course is to judge of them by the rule which respectable persons of the same class would spontaneously acknowledge. No doubt the defendant has given way to the evil habit of drink, and by means of it has brought discomfort to his home and trouble and sorrow to his aged wife. All this is extremely reprehensible, and no excuse can be given for it. But the question here is whether either of the alleged grounds of divorce is well proved — whether it is made out that he has become an habitual drunkard or has been guilty of the extreme cruelty charged. And after a careful study of the record we reach the conclusion that the weight of evidence favors neither, and that the circuit judge committed no error when he dismissed the bill.

The Court would especially lament the necessity of severing the bonds of marriage between persons so old and so long married; but, of course, were the facts sufficient the unpleasant duty could not be evaded.

The decree below must be affirmed

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Dai Chow Chang v. Yit Ping Chang
30 Haw. 354 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1928)
Sturgis v. Sturgis
139 N.W. 866 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
Talty v. City of Atlantic
60 N.W. 516 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.W. 541, 50 Mich. 438, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-v-kline-mich-1883.