¶1The proof in the case, in the opinion of the court, presented an ordinary case of wilful desertion. In denying the bill, the court so remarked, and further intimated, in the present, as it did in some other cases arising under the same stat-*787ate, in the course of this circuit, that, in order to grant a bill for the cause here alleged, something more must be shown than a wilful desertion of the wife by the husband, although he were of ample ability to maintain her, and refused her any aid in that respect. The terms, “ grossly, wantonly, and cruelly,” &c., although not very definite, must not be considered wholly insignificant. The legislature did intend a new cause of divorce, and the court could not regard it as synonymous with that of wilful desertion, where three years are required, and here only one year.
15 Vt. 786
Mandigo v. Mandigo
Decided January 15, 1843
Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1843-01-15
This was a petition for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the part of the wife, on the ground of the husband, “ being of sufficient ability to provide suitable maintenance for her, having, without cause, grossly, and wantonly, and cruelly refused and neglected so to do.” .
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1843-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1918
4 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 →