Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Mich. 322

Dashback v. Dashback

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1886

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1886-07-01

<p>Divorce — Bill for on ground of extreme cruelly — Must specify specific acts —Or no proof adm issible on that branch of the case — Desertion— Held not established (see head-note 2) — Failure to support — See headnote S for facts amounting to.</p> <p>1. Where a bill for divorce on the grouud of extreme cruelty fails to specify any specific acts of cruelty, no proof is admissible on that branch of the case.</p> <p>3. Where a husband and wife left his farm and went to reside with her parents, and three months thereafter separated, but the proof fails to show whether he was driven away or left voluntarily, intending to desert his wife, a case of desertion is not made out.</p> <p>8. Where the proof is ample that a husband was of “sufficient ability” to furnish his wife a suitable maintenance, and that he grossly and wantonly neglected so to do, a decree will be granted the wife for an absolute divorce.</p>

Relies on Briggs v. Briggs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decree reversed, and one entered granting relief · Decided 1886-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1947

3 state decisions

101886189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Champlin, J.

¶1Complainant asks for a divorce upon the1 ground of extreme cruelty, wanton refusal and neglect to provide her a suitable sustenance, and desertion.

¶2The bill of complaint does not specify any acts of cruelty, and consequently it is insufficient to allow the introduction ■of any proof upon that branch of the case: Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 41; Bennett v. Bennett, 24 Id. 482.

¶3Neither do the proofs make a case of desertion. After leaving defendant’s farm they both went to reside with her parents, and after about three months -they separated. While there he caused a great deal of ’trouble. His father-in-law was obliged to remain home a good share of the time to restrain him from acts of violence, and finally he went away; but the circumstances under which he left are not narrated by the witnesses.

¶4The presumption is just as strong that he was driven away as it is that he left voluntarily with the intention of deserting his wife. There is1, however, abundant evidence that he was of sufficient ability to supply his wife with a suitable maintenance, and that he grossly and wantonly neglected so to do.

¶5The complainant must be awarded the care and custody of the child, as prayed for; and the decree of the circuit court must be reversed, and a decree entered here dissolving the marriage between the parties for the cause last stated.

¶6The complainant is entitled to the costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.
/62/mich/322 · .json · Public domain