Morris v. Morris
Citations
- 14 Cal. 76
- 1859 Cal. LEXIS 242
Syllabus
<p>Exteeme cruelty, in our Divorce Act, means the same thing as the scesüia or cruelty of the English Ecclesiastical Courts.</p> <p>It may he defined, generally, to be any conduct, in one of the married parties, which furnishes reasonable apprehension that the continuance of the cohabitation would be attended with bodily harm to the other.</p> <p>Courts grant divorces, in such cases, not to punish an offense already committed, but to relieve the complaining party of apprehended danger. And the divorce may follow, even in the absence of any actual violence.</p> <p>But if there has been actual violence, it must'be attended with danger to life, limb or health, or be such as to cause reasonable apprehension of future danger.</p>
Judges: Cope
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Ring v. RingSupreme Court of Georgia· 1903-06-03· cited 41×
- de Coito v. de CoitoHawaii Supreme Court· 1912-11-09· cited 16×
- Reed v. ReedNevada Supreme Court· 1868-07-01· cited 16×
- Kapp v. District Court of the Seventh Judicial DistrictNevada Supreme Court· 1909-07-15· cited 14×
- Waldron v. WaldronCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-08-04· cited 13×
- Valverde v. ValverdeNevada Supreme Court· 1933-11-03· cited 12×
- Powelson v. PowelsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 10×
- Dai Chow Chang v. Yit Ping ChangHawaii Supreme Court· 1928-03-28· cited 1×
- Dunn v. DunnMichigan Supreme Court· 1907-12-30· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.