Meader v. Meader

252 Mass. 132
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 17, 1925·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Wait, J.

The decree of the Probate Court must be affirmed. There was evidence of the application of physical force to the body of the libellant by the libellee with the purpose of inflicting suffering and not for the sake of self-protection of the libellee. Such conduct is cruel and abusive within the literal and most narrow interpretation of the words. Although the testimony was directly contradictory, and corroboration was lacking, we cannot say that the judge who heard and saw the witnesses was clearly wrong in the decision he made.

No error of law appears.

Decree affirmed.

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

Meader v. Meader, 252 Mass. 132 (Mass. 1925).

252 Mass. 132 (Meader v. Meader) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sayles v. Sayles
80 N.E.2d 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Reddington v. Reddington
59 N.E.2d 775 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Richardson v. Richardson
112 F.2d 19 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Callan v. Callan
181 N.E. 736 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Katz v. Katz
174 N.E. 202 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Coan v. Coan
162 N.E. 663 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)