Case ID: nys_20/html/0765-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adams v. Adams.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    November 18, 1892.)
    Divorce—Abandonment.
    In an action for limited divorce on the ground of abandonment the court properly dismissed the action where the proof showed nothing certain except the disagreement of the parties, and that their living apart was with the virtual consent of plaintiff.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by Matilda M. Adams against Samuel M. Adams for limited divorce. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J„ and O’Brien and Barrett, JJ.
    
      Smith & White, for appellant. G. P. Howe, for respondent.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

This action was brought to obtain a limited divorce upon the ground of abandonment. The learned court dismissed the complaint upon the ground that there was no sufficient proof showing abandonment to justify the granting of a decree. With this conclusion we have no disposition to interfere. The evidence upon the part of the plaintiff tending to show an abandonment is of a very vague and unsatisfactory character; and the claim of want of support rests upon even a slighter foundation, as there is no evidence whatever tending to show that the defendant has not contributed to the plaintiff’s support as far as his means would allow. It is evident that there were disagreements between the parties, and that their married life was not particularly harmonious. But there is no evidence of a refusal upon the part of the defendant to contribute to the support of the plaintiff; and, as far as their living apart is concerned, it would appear to have been with the consent and virtual approbation of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, no case whatever is made out for the interference of the court; and, as mere inharmonious relations have not as yet become, in this state, a ground for the granting of a decree of divorce, we think that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.