Wall v. Wall

Connecticut Superior Court

Wall v. Wall

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 192, 9 Conn. Supp. 192, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 40

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1941

DocketFile 58336

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 192 (Wall v. Wall) 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

Wall v. Wall, 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 192, 9 Conn. Supp. 192, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

The plaintiff seeks a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. It is clear that beginning in 1929 and continuing to date the defendant has been an unwell woman, and affected with a nervous and mental disturbance. During this time, at plaintiff’s solicitation, she was placed in institU' tions on at least three occasions for care and treatment. The defendant was aware of her condition, and always cooperated for the purposes of treatment. At times, due to her nervous condition, she in all probability did and said things which irritated the plaintiff and affected his nerves. However, it seems to the court that these trials of the plaintiff were such as he, as the husband, for the purposes of maintaining the marriage state, should reasonably bear. “There are trials caus' *193 ing much weariness and suffering, which parties to the marriage contract must bear; the policy of the State, as well as the sacred nature of the marriage covenant, requires patient endurance.” McEvoy vs. McEvoy, 99 Conn. 427, 431; More house vs. Morehouse, 70 Conn. 420, 427. It seems to the court that the instant case falls within the principles enunciated in the above cases. This conclusion would not be altered even if it were true that the defendant attempted to choke the plaintiff on two occasions when they were lying in bed, but the circumstances surrounding the alleged attempts to choke the plaintiff and the manner in which he claims the claimed attempts were made, make it altogether improbable that any such attempts were ever made. Certainly it cannot be found that the attempts were made, nor that the defendant ever attempted to strike her oldest son with a pair of scissors. It seems to the court that this plaintiff is attempting to “get from under” the burden which the law as well as his marriage covenant imposes upon him to provide for his wife in sickness or in health.

The case is, therefore, dismissed.

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

SIMPSON, J.

The plaintiff seeks a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty. It is clear that beginning in 1929 and continuing to date the defendant has been an unwell woman, and affected with a nervous and mental disturbance. During this time, at plaintiff’s solicitation, she was placed in institU' tions on at least three occasions for care and treatment. The defendant was aware of her condition, and always cooperated for the purposes of treatment. At times, due to her nervous condition, she in all probability did and said things which irritated the plaintiff and affected his nerves. However, it seems to the court that these trials of the plaintiff were such as he, as the husband, for the purposes of maintaining the marriage state, should reasonably bear. “There are trials caus' *193 ing much weariness and suffering, which parties to the marriage contract must bear; the policy of the State, as well as the sacred nature of the marriage covenant, requires patient endurance.” McEvoy vs. McEvoy, 99 Conn. 427, 431; More house vs. Morehouse, 70 Conn. 420, 427. It seems to the court that the instant case falls within the principles enunciated in the above cases. This conclusion would not be altered even if it were true that the defendant attempted to choke the plaintiff on two occasions when they were lying in bed, but the circumstances surrounding the alleged attempts to choke the plaintiff and the manner in which he claims the claimed attempts were made, make it altogether improbable that any such attempts were ever made. Certainly it cannot be found that the attempts were made, nor that the defendant ever attempted to strike her oldest son with a pair of scissors. It seems to the court that this plaintiff is attempting to “get from under” the burden which the law as well as his marriage covenant imposes upon him to provide for his wife in sickness or in health.

The case is, therefore, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 192, 9 Conn. Supp. 192, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-wall-connsuperct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack