Case ID: mich_43/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Craves, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Prudence A. Lockwood v. Joseph Lockwood.
    
      Divorce for cruelty.
    
    
      'A decree dismissing a bill praying for divorce on the ground “of extreme cruelty in the use of abusive language, was properly dismissed where the proofs, which were taken in open court, failed to make out a case.
    Appeal from Eaton.
    Submitted Jan. 21.
    Decided April 8.
    Divorce. The bill claimed that the parties had been married nearly three years; that defendant was inordinately passionate; that complainant’s health broke down in consequence and she had to leave him, and that he used abusive language to and about her, such as that he wished lightning would strike her, etc. The proofs did not show that complainant’s illness was caused by her husband’s conduct towards her, or that she was seriously ill at any time. The bill was dismissed. Complainant appeals.
    
      D. P. Sagendorph for complainant.
    Cruelty that will justify a divorce is not limited to physical violence, Cooper v. Cooper 17 Mich. 210; Briggs v. Briggs 20 Mich. 45; Goodman v. Goodman 26 Mich. 417; Bennett v. Bennett 24 Mich. 484; separate maintenance should be granted where the husband’s conduct justifies the wife in leaving, Randall v. Randall 37 Mich. 574.
    
      John M. Corbin for defendant.
   Craves, J.

This bill was filed by complainant to obtain a decree divorcing her forever from the bed and board of her husband, the defendant, and prescribing suitable provision for her support and maintenance; and it set up for cause that the defendant had practiced extreme cruelty against her in certain ways specified.

The proofs were taken in open court, and the circuit judge found that they failed to make out a case, and we agree with him.

It is not expedient to dilate upon the controversy, or even to recall its repulsive features.

The dismissal is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.