Smith v. Smith

62 Cal. 466, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 762
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 28, 1882
DocketNo. 8,319
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 62 Cal. 466 (Smith v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. Smith, 62 Cal. 466, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 762 (Cal. 1882).

Opinion

The Court:

Plaintiff sued defendant for a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, alleging in his complaint various acts claimed to constitute cruelty, all of which are denied in the defendant’s answer. A decree of divorce was entered in the Court below, and one of the errors assigned on this appeal is that the findings are insufficient to support the judgment. The following are the findings on the question of extreme cruelty;

“ 5. That the conduct of the defendant toward the plaintiff, and her treatment of her children during the last several years, has, upon repeated occasions, been extremely cruel, and that in the month of June, 1880, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiff, she deserted her husband and children, and went to Dusseldorf, in Germany, for the purpose, as she now claims, of perfecting herself in the art of painting, and remained absent from her said husband and [468]*468children until the seventeenth day of September thence next ensuing, upon which day she returned to Los Angeles City.

" 6. That the repeated acts of cruelty, as established by the evidence, upon the part of said defendant toward her said husband and children during the last several years, have inflicted upon the plaintiff grievous mental suffering.”

It will be observed that the only fact of alleged cruelty expressly found is that the defendant deserted her husband and children and went to Dusseldorf, in Germany, for the purpose of perfecting herself in the art of painting, and was abroad from June until September, 1880. This act did not of itself constitute such cruelty as entitled the plaintiff to a divorce. (1 Bish. on Marriage and Divorce, § 738.) The sixth finding is but a conclusion of law, and does not find any fact in issue in the case. (Polhemus v. Carpenter, 42 Cal. 386.)

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

Lámar v. Lámar
30 Cal. 2d 898 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Del Ruth v. Del Ruth
171 P.2d 34 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Jordan v. Jordan
135 P.2d 416 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Schoren v. Schoren
214 P. 885 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Shaingold v. Shaingold
216 P. 603 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Turner v. Turner
203 P. 109 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Dupes v. Dupes
184 P. 425 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Franklin v. Franklin
74 P. 155 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Waldron v. Waldron
24 P. 649 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cal. 466, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-cal-1882.