Schenberger v. Schenberger

Connecticut Superior Court

Schenberger v. Schenberger

13 Conn. Supp. 200, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 12

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided February 2, 1945·No. File No. 65023·Published

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

The arguments on the pending motion disclosed that it is the plaintiff’s claim that a part of the intolerable cruelty consisted of defendant’s refusal to have marital rela' tions and that there was no physical reason for such refusal. Defendant’s counsel admitted there was no physical reason that would be claimed. This certainly disposes of any reason for the unusual request. There is no need to consider the propriety in a proper case. In view of the statement made in -court, the motion is denied.

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

WYNNE, J.

The arguments on the pending motion disclosed that it is the plaintiff’s claim that a part of the intolerable cruelty consisted of defendant’s refusal to have marital rela' tions and that there was no physical reason for such refusal. Defendant’s counsel admitted there was no physical reason that would be claimed. This certainly disposes of any reason for the unusual request. There is no need to consider the propriety in a proper case. In view of the statement made in -court, the motion is denied.

Schenberger v. Schenberger, 13 Conn. Supp. 200, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

13 Conn. Supp. 200 (Schenberger v. Schenberger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.