Case Name: Jane Briggs vs. Russell Briggs
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1870-01
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. iii
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jane Briggs vs. Russell Briggs.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: iii–iv

Head Matter:
Jane Briggs vs. Russell Briggs.
A bill for divorce may be amended after cause has been set down for Hearing on pleadings by adding new specifications of cruelty.
After amendment, divorce bills should be resworn. Not required where petition to amend, setting forth the proposed amendment, is sworn to; at least, where such amendment precludes all idea of collusion.
A physician will not be al lowed to testify either to matters communicated by the patient for the purpose of procuring treatment or to knowledge acquired in any manner for that purpose.
Grossly indecent and profane language, continued, with occasional outbursts of violence, is “ extreme cruelty” within the meaning of the law.
Appeal in Chancery from Washtenaw Circuit.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Cooley, J.
The bill was filed for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of extreme cruelty. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill aD,d complainant appealed.
The case depended mainly upon conflicting evidence of facts. A few questions of law were, however, involved, which .may he mentioned as follows:
1. It was objected that the Circuit Court erred in allowing the complainant to amend her bill by adding a new specification of cruelty after the cause had beeu set down for hearing on the pleadings. Held, that it had the power to do so, and that its discretion was properly exercised in this case.
2. This amendment was claimed to be ineffectual because the bill was not resworn after the amendment. Upon this point the Court was of opinion that all bills in divorce cases should be r'esworn after amendment in order to negative collusion between the parties; but as the change added in this case was sworn to in the petition asking leave to amend, and its nature was such as to preclude the idea of collusion, it must be held sufficient.
3. The evidence of defendant's" physician was taken in the case in order to show that at a certain time defendant had a certain disease. Defendant objected to this evidence, and the Court suppressed it. The statute which precludes physicians from testifying to what has been disclosed to them in order that they may prescribe for their patients applies not merely to communications made to them, but to knowledge acquired in any manner for that purpose.
4. As to what shall constitute such extreme cruelty as shall warrant a divorce, the Court was of opinion that the consequences of the alleged cruel conduct upon the marriage relation were to be regarded rather than the actual or possible physical effects of particular acts. If a man, by long continued reprehensible conduct towards his family, accompanied by grossly indeceut and profane language, and with occasional outbursts of" violence, renders a further continuance of the marriage relation unendurable to the wife, it cannot be doubted .that his cruelty has, in respect to the marriage relation, become " extreme" within the meaning of the law. Such a case the Court thought was made out by the evidence in this case. Decree reversed, and divorce decreed, with costs ' of both Courts. Cause remanded, with directions to the Circuit Court to order a reference on the question of the proper amount of alimony to be paid to the complainant.