Stokes v. Stokes

Decided May 15, 1823

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1823-05-15

?. Divorce: A deed of separation is no bar to an application for a divorce; and adultery, committed by either par ly, after such separation, is a good cause of divorce» ‘i. One year’s residence of complainant is not necessary, previous to an application for a divorce a mensa et ■fioro. It is only necessary, where the application is for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. (See acts of May 13, 1807, and January 29,1817,1 Territorial L of Mo., pp. 90 and 517.) 3. Adultery is a good cause of divorce amensa et thoro, if committed within this State, or while the injured party is domiciled within this Slate. 1. Different causes of divorce may be joined in the same bill. 5. The cause for divorce ought to be specifically alledged in the bill, and not left to inference or presumption.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1823-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1965

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jones, J.

¶1I concur in the above opinion, except as to that part of it which relates to the deed of separation, which, I think amounts to a bar.

M’Gikk, C. J.

¶2In the case of Stokes v. Stokes, my opinion is r

¶3First. That residence of one year for a divorce, a mensa et thoro is not necessary.

¶4Second. That under our statute, adultery is a cause of divorce, a mensa et thoro.

¶5Third. That the deed of separation is no bar to a divorce.

¶6Eourth. That adultery, committed in England, is cognizable in our Courts.

¶7Fifth. That the proceedings, under our statute, are sui generis, neither chancery nor ecclesiastical, but that the parties must make their averment, with reasonable legal precision.