TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Haskell v. Haskell

John Haskell v. Mary A. Haskell

Haskell v. Haskell, 24 N.E. 859 (Mass. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 21, 1890
Judges
Field
Citations
24 N.E. 859152 Mass. 161890 Mass. LEXIS 9
Headnotes
Divorce— Custody of Children. A husband obtaining a divorce from his wife for her bigamy and adultery is not entitled, as matter of law, to the custody of their children.
Summary
Libel for divorce, dated January 1, 1889, brought by a husband against his wife for bigamy and adultery, in which he prayed for the custody of their two sons, about five and six years old respectively. At the hearing in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., there was evidence in support of the averments of the libel, and no misconduct was shown on the part of the libellant. The libellant asked the judge to rule: “ If the court find that the libellee has committed bigamy or adultery, it follows, as a legal consequence, that she ought not to have the care and training of the libellant’s sons, unless the court finds that the libellant is not a suitable person to have such care and custody; also, that, in the absence of misconduct on the part of the libellant, it is not within the discretion of the court to give the custody of his children to the libellee, if she has deliberately committed bigamy or adultery.” The judge granted a divorce nisi to the libellant, but declined so to rule, or to give him the custody of the two sons; and ordered that during their tender years, and until the further order of the court, they should remain in the custody of the libellee, and be supported by her, but should not be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and that the libellant should have an opportunity to see them with reasonable frequency. The libellant alleged exceptions.

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

Opinion of the Court — Field

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

Field, J.

We know of no absolute rule of law that the father is entitled to the custody of the children when he obtains a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground of bigamy *17 and adultery committed by the wife. We see no error of law in the exceptions. Whether the justice who tried the libel, in view of all the facts appearing at the trial, exercised a sound discretion is a question not before us. See Oliver v. Oliver, 151 Mass. 349 . Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 11929: 11932: 11934: 11951: 21968: 11981: 119262026peak 1951 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooke v. Cooke248 P. 83 (Utah 1926)
  2. Sakraida v. Sakraida233 P.2d 762 (Or. 1951)
  3. Guardianship of Casad234 P.2d 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  4. Richards v. Forrest180 N.E. 508 (Mass. 1932)
  5. Bergeron v. Bergeron192 N.E. 86 (Mass. 1934)
  6. Swoyer v. Swoyer145 A. 190 (Md. 1929)

Most recent

  1. Fort v. Fort425 N.E.2d 754 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981)
  2. Clifford v. Clifford238 N.E.2d 522 (Mass. 1968)
  3. Guardianship of Casad234 P.2d 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  4. Sakraida v. Sakraida233 P.2d 762 (Or. 1951)
  5. Bergeron v. Bergeron192 N.E. 86 (Mass. 1934)
  6. Richards v. Forrest180 N.E. 508 (Mass. 1932)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Oliver v. Oliver, 24 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1890) 13

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