TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ellis v. Ellis

Ellis v. Ellis.

Ellis v. Ellis, 251 S.W. 287 (Tex. App. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 14, 1923
Docket
No. 2747.
Judges
Levy
Citations
251 S.W. 2871923 Tex. App. LEXIS 140

Opinion of the Court — Levy

LEVY, J.

This appeal is from the judgment of the court sustaining a general demurrer to the petition of appellant in a suit for divorce. The appellant declined to amend, and judgment was rendered for the defendant.

The divorce is sought upon the ground that the husband was guilty of certain alleged cruel treatment and outrages towards the wife, of such a nature as to render their further living together insupportable. Certain misconduct is set out in detail, and there are general allegations of a course of unkind and harsh conduct toward the wife, continuing for a considerable period of time. Such facts, if true, might, in point *288 of fact, be misconduct of such a nature as to render the further living together of the husband and wife insupportable. Wounded feelings and pride and mental distress occasioned to the wife by a long-continued course of misbehavior on the part of the husband does, generally speaking, constitute the misconduct contemplated by the statutes that would “render their living together insupportable.” Eastman v. Eastman, 75 Tex. 473 , 12 S. W. 1107 ; Lefevre v. Lefevre (Tex. Civ. App.) 205 S. W. 842 ; Erwin v. Erwin (Tex Civ. App.) 231 S. W. 834 . As to whether or not a jury or the trial judge would conclude that such alleged acts constitute, in point of fact, misconduct of such a nature as to render further living together of husband and wife insupportable, is quite another question. As against a general demurrer the allegations' of the petition are sufficient.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11927: 11929: 11931: 11947: 11951: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Swift v. Swift37 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. App. 1931)
  2. Ingham v. Ingham240 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. App. 1951)
  3. Skop v. Skop201 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. App. 1947)
  4. Daniel v. Daniel16 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. App. 1929)
  5. Bobbitt v. Bobbitt291 S.W. 964 (Tex. App. 1927)
  6. Oliver v. Oliver283 S.W. 641 (Tex. App. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Ingham v. Ingham240 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. App. 1951)
  2. Skop v. Skop201 S.W.2d 77 (Tex. App. 1947)
  3. Swift v. Swift37 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. App. 1931)
  4. Daniel v. Daniel16 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. App. 1929)
  5. Bobbitt v. Bobbitt291 S.W. 964 (Tex. App. 1927)
  6. Oliver v. Oliver283 S.W. 641 (Tex. App. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Eastman v. Eastman, 12 S.W. 1107 (Tex. App. 1889) 35
Erwin v. Erwin, 231 S.W. 834 (Tex. App. 1921) 9
Lefevre v. Lefevre, 205 S.W. 842 (Tex. App. 1918) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list