Johnson v. Johnson
Citations
- 125 Ill. 510
- 16 N.E. 891
Syllabus
<p>1. Husband and wife—separate maintenance—what will justify the wife in living apart from her husband. To maintain a bill by a wife against her husband for separate maintenance, the former must show, not only that she had good cause for living separate and apart from her husband, but also that such living apart was without fault on her part.</p> <p>2. The fault on the wife’s part contemplated by the statute, is a voluntary consenting by her to a separation, or such failure of duty or misconduct on her part as materially contributed to a disruption of the marital relation.</p> <p>3. If the wife leaves her husband voluntarily or by consent, or if her misconduct has materially induced the action on the part of the husband upon which she relies as justifying the separation, she will not be without fault on her part, within the meaning of the law.</p> <p>4. While it is not the policy of the law to encourage a husband and wife in living apart, yet a wife who is not herself in fault, is not bound to live and cohabit with her husband if his conduct is such as to directly endanger her life, person or health, nor when he has pursued a persistent, unjustifiable and wrongful course of conduct toward her, which will necessarily render her life miserable, and living as his wife unendurable.</p> <p>5. Mere incompatibility of disposition, occasional ebullitions of passion, trivial difficulties or slight moral obliquities, will not justify the wife in separating from her husband and claiming a separate maintenance.</p> <p>6. If the husband voluntarily does that which compels the wife to leave him, or justifies her in so doing, it may be inferred that he intended to produce that result, and the wife’s leaving, in such ease, would be desertion on his part, and not on the part of the wife.</p> <p>7. Same—offer on the part of the husband to resume the marital relation. If the husband, after he has forced his wife to leave him, by harshness and cruelty, offers to take her back, support
Judges: Shope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In re DoleHawaii Supreme Court· 1903-01-21· cited 65×
- Holmstedt v. HolmstedtIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-05-20· cited 30×
- Decker v. DeckerIllinois Supreme Court· 1917-06-21· cited 30×
- French v. FrenchIllinois Supreme Court· 1922-02-22· cited 24×
- Slavinsky v. SlavinskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1934-06-04· cited 23×
- McMullin v. McMullinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-04· cited 18×
- Levy v. LevyIllinois Supreme Court· 1944-09-19· cited 17×
- Amberson v. AmbersonIllinois Supreme Court· 1932-06-24· cited 15×
- Van Dolman v. Van DolmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1941-11-18· cited 15×
- Collins v. CollinsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1977-03-22· cited 13×
- Appleton v. AppletonWashington Supreme Court· 1917-07-05· cited 13×
- Milliron v. MillironSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1896-08-05· cited 13×
- Akin v. AkinAppellate Court of Illinois· 1970-06-24· cited 11×
- Glover v. GloverAppellate Court of Illinois· 1971-03-25· cited 11×
- McAdams v. McAdamsAppellate Court of Illinois· 1932-06-20· cited 11×
- Bush v. BushAppellate Court of Illinois· 1942-11-04· cited 11×
- Hartshorn v. HartshornSupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1916-02-17· cited 10×
- Klosowski v. KlosowskiIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-12-16· cited 10×
- State ex rel. Young v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1915-04-12· cited 8×
- Aurand v. AurandIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-10-11· cited 8×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.