Ripley v. Ripley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ripley v. Ripley

155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 26, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1139

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 658 (Ripley v. Ripley) 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

Ripley v. Ripley, 155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 26, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1139 (Mass. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Rtjgg, C.J.

This is a libel for divorce by a husband against his wife, and a petition for separate support by the wife against the husband. The cases were tried together on the merits. The judge of probate found as a fact that the wife had been guilty of cruel and abusive conduct and ordered a decree in favor of the husband in each case. The reported facts amply support this conclusion, and, the evidence not being reported, it will not be disturbed.

The argument of the wife that the libellant condoned her marital offences cannot be supported. The finding upon this point is: “I further find that title to the home was in the libellant; that said libellant and libellee lived separately in said home; that the libellant was a weak, debilitated old man; that his wife was healthy, robust and vigorous; that the libellant remained in his own home after the October assault [the last assault relied upon] because he was in poor health and emaciated and had no other place to go. I further find upon the evidence that the libellant, by remaining in his home, did not condone the cruel and abusive treatment on the part of the libellee.” “Condonation is a state of mind to be determined upon all the evidence, including rational inferences.” Drew v. Drew, 250 Mass. 41, 45. It commonly is a question of fact. A finding by the tribunal hearing oral testimony will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong. There are here no facts inconsistent with the general finding. Gardner v. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434, 440, 442. Cumming v. Cumming, 135 Mass. 386. Smith v. Smith, 154 Mass. 262. Osborn v. Osborn, 174 Mass. 399.

[28]*28The acts of cruelty occurred in the years 1920,1923, and 1924. The libel was dated October 10, 1924, and served on the libellee on January 27, 1925. This delay in bringing the libel does not bar its maintenance.

The requests for rulings were denied rightly.

Decrees affirmed.

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

Rtjgg, C.J.

This is a libel for divorce by a husband against his wife, and a petition for separate support by the wife against the husband. The cases were tried together on the merits. The judge of probate found as a fact that the wife had been guilty of cruel and abusive conduct and ordered a decree in favor of the husband in each case. The reported facts amply support this conclusion, and, the evidence not being reported, it will not be disturbed.

The argument of the wife that the libellant condoned her marital offences cannot be supported. The finding upon this point is: “I further find that title to the home was in the libellant; that said libellant and libellee lived separately in said home; that the libellant was a weak, debilitated old man; that his wife was healthy, robust and vigorous; that the libellant remained in his own home after the October assault [the last assault relied upon] because he was in poor health and emaciated and had no other place to go. I further find upon the evidence that the libellant, by remaining in his home, did not condone the cruel and abusive treatment on the part of the libellee.” “Condonation is a state of mind to be determined upon all the evidence, including rational inferences.” Drew v. Drew, 250 Mass. 41, 45. It commonly is a question of fact. A finding by the tribunal hearing oral testimony will not be disturbed unless it is plainly wrong. There are here no facts inconsistent with the general finding. Gardner v. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434, 440, 442. Cumming v. Cumming, 135 Mass. 386. Smith v. Smith, 154 Mass. 262. Osborn v. Osborn, 174 Mass. 399.

[28]*28The acts of cruelty occurred in the years 1920,1923, and 1924. The libel was dated October 10, 1924, and served on the libellee on January 27, 1925. This delay in bringing the libel does not bar its maintenance.

The requests for rulings were denied rightly.

Decrees affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 26, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripley-v-ripley-mass-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack