Ward v. Ward
Citations
- 103 Ill. 477
- 1882 Ill. LEXIS 204
Syllabus
<p>1. Divorce—“extreme and repeated cruelty,” as a ground for divorce. It is difficult to define with precision what is and what is not extreme and repeated cruelty. The same act is not the same thing under all circumstances and to all persons. Necessarily each case must, to a large degree, be judged by itself.</p> <p>2. As extreme and protracted suffering may be produced primarily by operating on the mind alone, threats of physical violence, and false charges of adultery, by a husband against hie wife to her face, maliciously made, are competent evidence to prove cruelty, on a bill for divorce, and when they are accompanied or followed by acts of actual malicious physical violence, they seem to magnify the atrocity of the acts.</p> <p>3. It seems that any willful misconduct of a husband which endangers the life or health of his wife,—which exposes her to bodily hazard and intolerable hardship, and renders cohabitation unsafe,—is extreme cruelty. To amount to such cruelty it is not necessary there should be many acts, and whenever force and violence, preceded by deliberate insult and abuse, have been once wantonly and without provocation used, the wife can hardly be considered safe.</p> <p>4. On the trial of a bill for divorce brought by a wife, the proof showed four or five distinct assaults and batteries upon her by the husband, apparently without provocation, and in addition falsely charging her with a want of chastity, and almost constant insult and abuse within a period of three years, terminating in their separation: Held, that the facts authorized a decree of divorce.</p> <p>5. Same—of the. allegations and proofs. Literal proof of every allegation of a bill in chancery, as, on a bill for divorce as to cruelty, is not required. Substantial proof of the material allegations is sufficient.</p> <p>6. Evidence—as to contents of a letter written by the witness. On the trial of a suit for a divorce brought by a wife against her husband, her brother was called by her
Judges: Scholeield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Fritz v. FritzIllinois Supreme Court· 1891-11-04· cited 41×
- Holmstedt v. HolmstedtIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-05-20· cited 30×
- Teal v. TealIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-12-23· cited 23×
- Uhlmann v. UhlmannNew York Court of Common Pleas· 1885-11-15· cited 16×
- Sharp v. SharpIllinois Supreme Court· 1886-03-27· cited 15×
- Coolidge v. CoolidgeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1955-02-23· cited 10×
- Whitlock v. WhitlockIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-04-22· cited 2×
- Sharp v. SharpAppellate Court of Illinois· 1885-04-08· cited 1×
- Rupp v. RuppAppellate Court of Illinois· 1895-07-01
- Maddox v. MaddoxAppellate Court of Illinois· 1900-09-11
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.