TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Epling v. Epling

Epling v. Epling, 64 Ky. 74 (1866)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 18, 1866
Judges
Peters
Citations
64 Ky. 741 Bush 741866 Ky. LEXIS 90
Headnotes
A husband, seeking to obtain a decree for a divorce from his wife, on the ground of abandonment or separation by the wife from the husband for one year, must allege in his petition, and. prove, that the wife had abandoned or separated from him without his fault.
Summary
CASE 23 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Sections 15, 16, and 460, Civil Code. Section 1, articled, chapter 47, Revised Statutes.

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

Opinion of the Court — Peters

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

CHIEF JUSTICE PETERS

delivered the opinion op the court:

Appellant brought this action in the court below to obtain a divorce from appellee, which was refused by said court.

*75 Section 1, article 3, chapter 47 (2 vol. R. S., p. 17), provides that courts having chancery jurisdiction may decree a divorce to the party not in fault. 1. For abandonment, or like separation by one party from the other for one year.

The petition fails to allege that appellant’s wife abandoned or separated from him without his fault, as required by the statute above referred to. If a party for mere separation would be entitled to a divorce, he might so conduct himself towards his wife, when, for the most trivial cause, or even without any cause at all, but from mere caprice, he should incline to a dissolution of the marriage contract, • as to render it impossible for her to live with him in peace or safety; and then ask the chancellor to decree him a divorce for a separation, which he had provoked in order to accomplish his wicked purpose; but it is sufficient that the statute only provides this remedy for a party not in fault, and the court has no power, if it had-the inclination, to require less. Wherefore, as appellant had failed to allege and prove the material fact, his petition was properly dismissed.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1880–1881: 11912–1913: 11920–1921: 11922–1923: 21924–1925: 11932–1933: 218802026peak 1922 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Newman v. Newman98 N.E. 507 (Mass. 1912)
  2. Watkins v. Watkins259 S.W. 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923)
  3. Yeager v. Yeager247 S.W. 5 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. Manning v. Manning221 S.W. 522 (Ky. Ct. App. 1920)
  5. Lewis v. Lewis266 S.W. 16 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
  6. Belcher v. Belcher45 S.W.2d 841 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Compton v. Compton54 S.W.2d 386 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932)
  2. Belcher v. Belcher45 S.W.2d 841 (Ky. Ct. App. 1932)
  3. Lewis v. Lewis266 S.W. 16 (Ky. Ct. App. 1924)
  4. Watkins v. Watkins259 S.W. 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923)
  5. Yeager v. Yeager247 S.W. 5 (Ky. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. Manning v. Manning221 S.W. 522 (Ky. Ct. App. 1920)

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