Case Name: Dorothy Bloomfield v. Arnold Bloomfield
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1957-10-29
Citations: 144 Conn. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dorothy Bloomfield v. Arnold Bloomfield
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Dorothy Bloomfield v. Arnold Bloomfield
Wynne, 0. J., Baldwin, Daly, King and Murphy, Js.
Argued October 8
decided October 29, 1957
Joseph Weiner, with whom, on the brief, was Lester Aaronson, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Arnold Bloomfield, pro se, the appellee (defendant).

Opinion:
Murphy, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty and has appealed from a judgment for the defendant. The finding, with such minor corrections as are warranted, supports the determination that the conduct of the defendant was cruel but not intolerable.
"Intolerable cruelty" as used in § 7327 of the General Statutes has a subjective as well as an objective meaning. There must be not only proof of acts of cruelty on the part of the defendant but also proof that in their cumulative effect upon the plaintiff they are intolerable in the sense of rendering the continuance of the marital relation unbearable. Goddard v. Goddard, 143 Conn. 727, 118 A.2d 906; Gowdy v. Gowdy, 120 Conn. 508, 510, 181 A. 462.
The burden was upon the plaintiff to prove intolerable cruelty. Since the finding cannot be corrected to include the ultimate fact of intolerable cruelty, the judgment cannot successfully be attacked. Augur v. Augur, 133 Conn. 211, 213, 49 A.2d 665.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.