Case Name: De Young v. De Young
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1936-06-04
Citations: 275 Mich. 681
Docket Number: Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 38,853
Parties: De Young v. De Young.
Judges: North, C. J., and Fead, Butzel, Bushnell, Edward M. Sharpe, and Tot, JJ., concurred. Potter, J., took no part in this decision.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 275
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
De Young v. De Young.
Divorce — Extreme Grubbty.
Single instance of mutual personal violence held, insufficient basis on which to grant absolute divorce on ground of extreme cruelty.
Appeal from Kalamazoo; Weimer (George V.), J.
Submitted April 9, 1936.
(Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 38,853.)
Decided June 4, 1936.
Bill by Luella V. De Young against John De Young for an absolute divorce. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Harry G. Howard, William J. Howard and John G. Howard, for plaintiff.
B. G. Goembel, for defendant.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
Plaintiff filed the bill herein for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Defendant answered without asking affirmative relief. Proofs were taken in open court and the bill dismissed. Plaintiff prosecutes review.
Outside of differences in religious beliefs and squabbles incident thereto there appears an instance of personal violence that was mutual and with equal disgrace.
One noon he came home to dinner and, imagining that she bore a mellow appearance, he sought to kiss her. This act' coming at a time when they occupied separate beds, angered her and she seized a dinner plate and threw it at him. The plate broke and a part struck one of the children and when she seized another plate he slapped her. Following this she left him and their two small children, sold all of the household furniture, even to his bed, and has since lived apart from him and the children, but claims that if, and when, she is able to care for them she wants the children.
The record has been read, the mutual faults of the parties considered, and we are in agreement with the result reached by the circuit judge.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
North, C. J., and Fead, Butzel, Bushnell, Edward M. Sharpe, and Tot, JJ., concurred. Potter, J., took no part in this decision.