Case Name: HENSINGER v. HENSINGER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1948-01-05
Citations: 319 Mich. 645
Docket Number: Docket No. 36; Calendar No. 43,838
Parties: HENSINGER v. HENSINGER.
Judges: Carr, J., concurred with Dethmers, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 319
Pages: 645–653

Head Matter:
HENSINGER v. HENSINGER.
1. Husband and Wife—Separate Maintenance—Nonsupport—Evidence.
In suit for separate maintenance, evidence held, sufficient upon which to grant relief to wife on ground of nonsupport in view of showing made as to husband’s income as an assistant sales manager and small amounts contributed by him toward support' of plaintiff and their young son.
2. Same—Separate Maintenance—Extreme Cruelty—Evidence.
The writing of a letter by defendant husband and addressing it to a younger woman and which disclosed unduly intimate relations toward the intended recipient held, an aet of extreme cruelty toward plaintiff wife in suit for separate maintenance whether letter was indicative of actual relations or written to a fictitious person, for the purpose of deliberately deceiving the wife.
3. Same—Separate Maintenance—Extreme Cruelty—Evidence.
Where bill of complaint in suit for separate maintenance alleged that defendant was infatuated with another woman younger than himself and that defendant had asked plaintiff to get a divorce so he could marry such woman, a letter written by him to such woman and showing an unduly intimate relation with her was admissible in view of the allegations and evidence showing he was not taken by surprise.
4. Same—Separate Maintenance—Decree—Statutes.
Under reeord showing that plaintiff wife would have been entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of nonsupport and extreme cruelty, where statute provides that if such be the case the wife might have a decree of separate maintenance, a plaintiff seeking such relief is entitled to a decree therefor under such statute (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 12794).
5. Same—Separate Maintenance—Custody of Children—Alimony —Jurisdiction of Trial Court.
On appeal from dceree dismissing bill for separate maintenance where plaintiff is awarded such relief and custody of minor child, she is also awarded $80 monthly alimony, possession and use of household furniture, towards purchase of which plaintiff ’ had made substantial contributions from her own funds, with jurisdiction vested in trial court as to custody of child and alimony (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 12974).
Lethmers and Carr, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Jackson; Simpson (John), J.
Submitted October 9, 1947.
(Docket No. 36, Calendar No. 43,838.)
Decided January 5, 1948.
Bill by Mary Hensinger against Kenneth Hen-singer for separate maintenance. Decree for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
J ames J. Noon and J olm J. Gallagher, for plaintiff.
Blackman S Blackman, for defendant.

Opinion:
Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). The trial court dismissed plaintiff's bill of complaint for separate maintenance, finding that she had failed to prove her charges of habitual, drunkenness, nonsupport and extreme cruelty.
On appeal plaintiff raises no question as to the charge of habitual drunkenness.
Bearing on the charge of nonsupport, the proofs show that before the 'parties separated plaintiff incurred hospital and doctor bills, the major portion of which defendant had not paid; that defendant was in default in payments on a land contract for the purchase of the home of parties; and that defendant caused the telephone to be removed from the home despite plaintiff's insistence that she needed it. During the approximately six weeks intervening between the separation and filing of plaintiff's bill of complaint, defendant gave plaintiff $25, bought her a ton of coal and paid her grocery bills but failed to make payments on the land contract, resulting in its forfeiture and purchase of the home by the plaintiff on a new contract for the amount unpaid on the old. That this constituted failure to provide for plaintiff and the minor child of parties in a manner befitting their station in life and in keeping with defendant's means was not shown. Such ^proofs fall short of establishing nonsupport as ground for a decree for separate maintenance. •
In support of her charge of extreme cruelty plaintiff testified that she and defendant talked about a divorce once or twice; that after they separated defendant said that he wanted a divorce and that he did not care for plaintiff any more; that defendant admitted he thought he was in love with another woman, but that plaintiff thought it was a passing emotion from which defendant would recover after a while; that plaintiff found a woman's hair comb in defendant's ear and talked to him about it but did not think very much of it herself; that plaintiff found in defendant's coat pocket an unmailed letter, of a rather intimate nature, in defendant '& hanxlwriting, addressed to a woman. There is no testimony to establish the actual existence of such woman, that defendant had anything to do with her, nor that defendant's statements or the letter had such untoward effect on plaintiff or on the marriage relationship as to constitute extreme cruelty. Plaintiff concedes that a decree for her could not be predicated on the letter alone. In determining whether the language or conduct' of a husband toward his wife constitutes extreme cruelty, the degree of refinement or sensitiveness' of nature of the wife is to be considered and hence, the effect on the wife and upon the marriage relationship of such language or conduct. Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 34; Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Mich. 482; Utley v. Utley, 155 Mich. 258; Hall v. Hall, 172 Mich. 210. In this respect the record is of little assistance to plaintiff. We are con vinced that she has failed to establish extreme cruelty sufficient to warrant a decree for separate maintenance.
The order dismissing- plaintiff's bill of complaint should be affirmed, without costs to either party.
Carr, J., concurred with Dethmers, J.