Miller v. Miller

22 N.E. 765, 150 Mass. 111, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 30
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 765 (Miller v. Miller) 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
Miller v. Miller, 22 N.E. 765, 150 Mass. 111, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 30 (Mass. 1889).

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

By a decree of the Probate Court, in force at the time of the hearing in this case, it was adjudged that the libellee was living apart from her husband for justifiable cause. The court had jurisdiction of the case, and of the parties, and [112]*112the decree has the same binding effect as if it were made by any other court of competent jurisdiction. Smith v. Rice, 11 Mass. 507. Emery v. Hildreth, 2 Gray, 228. Pierce v. Prescott, 128 Mass. 140. McKim v. Doane, 137 Mass. 195.

The fact determined by it is inconsistent with the necessary allegation in the libel, that the libellee previously had utterly deserted the libellant, and was then continuing such desertion. Utter desertion, which is recognized by the statute as a cause for divorce, is a marital wrong. Because the deserter is a wrongdoer, the law gives the deserted party a right to a divorce. If a wife leaves her husband for a justifiable cause, it is not utter desertion within the meaning of the statute, and a wife who has utterly deserted her husband and is living apart from him in continuance of such desertion cannot be found to be so living for justifiable cause. Pidge v. Pidge, 3 Met. 257, 261. Fera v. Fera, 98 Mass. 155. Lyster v. Lyster, 111 Mass. 327.

The court should have ruled, as requested by the libellee, that the decree of the Probate Court was a bar to the maintenance of this libel. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Cannistraro v. Cannistraro
223 N.E.2d 692 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Foster v. Foster
70 Pa. D. & C. 485 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1949)
Sabini v. Sabini
38 Haw. 394 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1949)
Van Norman v. Van Norman
38 So. 2d 452 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1949)
Darden v. Darden
21 So. 2d 549 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1945)
Cochrane v. Cochrane
22 N.E.2d 6 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Malouf v. Malouf
90 P.2d 277 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1939)
Acevedo Vázquez v. Matheossian
50 P.R. 402 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1936)
Slavinsky v. Slavinsky
190 N.E. 826 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Claffey v. Fenelon
161 N.E. 616 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Williamson v. Williamson
246 Mass. 270 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Amato v. Amato
138 N.E. 542 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Parmelee v. Hutchins
131 N.E. 443 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Helpling v. Helpling
195 P. 715 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Austin v. Austin
233 Mass. 528 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Matlock v. Matlock
167 P. 311 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Condon v. Condon
8 Ohio App. 189 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1917)
Kelly v. Kelly
87 S.E. 567 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1916)
Mullen v. Mullen
11 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 353 (Logan County Court of Common Pleas, 1911)
Ford v. Ford
108 P. 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 N.E. 765, 150 Mass. 111, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-mass-1889.