Case ID: mich_124/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Montgomery, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REICHERT v. REICHERT.
    1. Divorce — Extreme Cruelty — Charos of Insanity.
    Where the complainant vas intensely jealous of her husband without just cause, his application to have her adjudged insane, made in the bona fide belief that her statements attributing improper conduct to him were induced by an unsettled mind, was not such cruelty as would entitle her to a divorce.
    2. Same — Appeal—Costs.
    On affirmance of a decree denying a wife a divorce, the Supreme Court, being convinced of the good faith of the appeal, allowed her her taxable costs.
    
      Appeal from Washtenaw; Kinne, J.
    Submitted June 7, 1900.
    Decided October 31, 1900.
    Bill by Katherine C. Reichert against John G. Reichert for a divorce. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      A. J. Sawyer & Son, for complainant.
    
      Lehman Bros. & Stivers, for defendant.
   Montgomery, C. J.

This case presents a most unfortunate controversy between husband and wife. The complainant seeks a divorce on the ground of cruelty, predicating the charge in part on an attempt made by her husband to have her committed to an insane asylum. Any general discussion of the causes of dissension between the parties would profit no one. On the contrary, such discussion might tend to widen the breach already existing. We are convinced that the complainant became intensely jealous of her husband without just cause, and the application to have her adjudged insane was made in good faith, and in the belief that the statements attributing improper conduct to the defendant were induced by an unsettled mind. We are not able to find in the defendant’s action in this regard, or in any other respect, such evidence of cruelty as will justify a decree of divorce.

The decree of the court below will be affirmed, but, as we are convinced of the good faith of the appeal, the taxable costs will be allowed to complainant.

The other Justices concurred.