Taylor v. Taylor

Connecticut Superior Court

Taylor v. Taylor

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 144, 7 Conn. Supp. 144, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 56

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 17, 1939

DocketFile 56236

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 144 (Taylor v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Taylor, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 144, 7 Conn. Supp. 144, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 56 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

O’SULLIVAN, J.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks a de' cree of divorce on the ground that the defendant has been guilty of intolerable cruelty.

The evidence in the case is such that it furnishes an apt illustration of incompatibility, a ground not recognized in the State of Connecticut as one upon which a divorce may be sought. That the conduct of the defendant was ungentleman' ly goes without saying and should not have been pursued. *145 The real difficulty, it seems to me, was that two characters were clashing, who had different notions of the proper sphere for the other party to enter. For example, when one wanted the window up, the other wanted it down; when one wanted company in the home, the other wanted to be alone with his wife; when one wanted to listen to a symphony orchestra being played over the air, the other wanted to listen to a different type of program. From all these clashes, each one of which was quite insignificant and yet annoying to the other party, this controversy has arisen.

It is unfortunate that two such persons should have entered into matrimonial contract, but, unfortunate as that may be, the conduct of the alleged offending party was obviously not of such a nature as to classify it as conduct “not only cruel but also intolerable.”

The decree must be denied.

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

O’SULLIVAN, J.

In this action, the plaintiff seeks a de' cree of divorce on the ground that the defendant has been guilty of intolerable cruelty.

The evidence in the case is such that it furnishes an apt illustration of incompatibility, a ground not recognized in the State of Connecticut as one upon which a divorce may be sought. That the conduct of the defendant was ungentleman' ly goes without saying and should not have been pursued. *145 The real difficulty, it seems to me, was that two characters were clashing, who had different notions of the proper sphere for the other party to enter. For example, when one wanted the window up, the other wanted it down; when one wanted company in the home, the other wanted to be alone with his wife; when one wanted to listen to a symphony orchestra being played over the air, the other wanted to listen to a different type of program. From all these clashes, each one of which was quite insignificant and yet annoying to the other party, this controversy has arisen.

It is unfortunate that two such persons should have entered into matrimonial contract, but, unfortunate as that may be, the conduct of the alleged offending party was obviously not of such a nature as to classify it as conduct “not only cruel but also intolerable.”

The decree must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 144, 7 Conn. Supp. 144, 1939 Conn. Super. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-taylor-connsuperct-1939.