TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Winslow v. Winslow

Ebenezer Winslow, Libellant, versus Susannah Winslow

Winslow v. Winslow, 7 Mass. 96 (1810)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1810
Citations
7 Mass. 96
Cited by 7
Headnotes
A libel for divorce cannot be sued by a guardian of a spendthrift.
Summary
The libel in this case, which was for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for the adultery of the wife, was subscribed by a guardian, who had been appointed over the libellant, by the judge of probate, as a spendthrift.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court

said it would be monstrous to dissolve a marriage upon such an application. It could not be known that the party ever gave his assent to the prosecution. If he is desirous of a divorce, and has sufficient ground to obtain one, he must file his libel in his own name.

Libel dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1840–1841: 11874–1875: 21878–1879: 11890–1891: 11906–1907: 11934–1935: 118402026peak 1874 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lombard v. Morse14 L.R.A. 273 (Mass. 1891)
  2. Garnett v. Garnett114 Mass. 379 (1874)
  3. Diggs v. Diggs291 Mass. 399 (1935)
  4. Hinkle v. Lovelace102 S.W. 1015 (Mo. 1907)
  5. Daniels v. Daniels56 N.H. 219 (1875)
  6. Newton v. Nutt58 N.H. 599 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Diggs v. Diggs291 Mass. 399 (1935)
  2. Hinkle v. Lovelace102 S.W. 1015 (Mo. 1907)
  3. Lombard v. Morse14 L.R.A. 273 (Mass. 1891)
  4. Newton v. Nutt58 N.H. 599 (1879)
  5. Daniels v. Daniels56 N.H. 219 (1875)
  6. Garnett v. Garnett114 Mass. 379 (1874)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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