TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Johnson v. Johnson

Charles G. Johnson v. Abby C. Johnson

Johnson v. Johnson, 14 N.W. 670 (Mich. 1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 17, 1883
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
14 N.W. 67049 Mich. 6391883 Mich. LEXIS 693
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Divorce — Settlement of case on stenographer’s notes — Extreme cruelty. A case in chancery may properly be settled on the stenographer’s 'notes where the trial judge goes out of office before the time for settling the case expires; and the procedure would be substantially the same as in settling a bill of exceptions at law. Act 8 of 1879. A continual succession of petty annoyances, complaints, fault-finding and disparagement of his common sense, taste and judgment do not constitute such extreme cruelty as will justify granting a husband a divorce from his wife.
Summary
Motion to vacate decree of divorce and remand for new trial on the ground that before the time for settling the case had expired the official term of the trial judge ended. Submitted April 4. Denied April 5. Appeal from Monroe. Bill for divorce. Defendant appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Marston

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

Marston, J.

This is a bill for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. In the circuit court a decree was granted as prayed.

A great deal of testimony was taken and the private life of the parties for many years is set forth in detail. They have been married thirty-seven years; have children and grand-children; are both members in good standing of a church; have been prominent and conspicuous ¡Dersons in society, and yet it is very evident that for a number of years they have not lived happily together.

The extreme cruelty relied upon, consists of petty annoyances, complaints and fault-finding, and the disparagement of complainant’s common sense, taste and judgment. But as was said in Cooper v. Cooper 17 Mich. 210, “the law does not permit courts to sever the marriage bond and to break up households, merely because parties, from unruly tempers or mutual wranglings, live unhappily together. It requires them to submit to the ordinary consequences of human infirmities, and of unwise selections, and the misconduct which will form a good ground for a legal separation must be very serious, and such as amounts to extreme cruelty, entirely subverting the family relations by rendering the association intolerable.” Tested by what was thus said, when we consider the specific facts given in evidence to prove extreme cruelty, they are when separately considered of but slight importance. No doubt many of the little things now complained of were very annoying at the time, but such annoyances fall to the lot of many, who wisely bear therewith, rather than seek relief in the courts.

We do not think it wise to enter into any extended discussion of the facts in a case like the present, in hopes that wiser counsels may prevail, and that in a spirit of forgetfulness and forgiveness these parties may, as they should, become reconciled, and spend the remainder of their days under the same roof.

*641 In my opinion the bill of complaint should be dismissed, and a gross snm of five hundred dollars allowed the defendant for costs and expenses.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1897: 11914: 11927: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Young v. Young146 N.W. 177 (Mich. 1914)
  2. Freeborn v. Freeborn46 N.E. 428 (Mass. 1897)
  3. Fresby v. Fresby214 N.W. 203 (Mich. 1927)

Most recent

  1. Fresby v. Fresby214 N.W. 203 (Mich. 1927)
  2. Young v. Young146 N.W. 177 (Mich. 1914)
  3. Freeborn v. Freeborn46 N.E. 428 (Mass. 1897)

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
Cooper v. Cooper, 17 Mich. 205 (1868) 31

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