TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mary F v. Samuel F

MARY F-, LIBELLANT, versus SAMUEL F

Mary F v. Samuel F, 1 N.H. 198 (1818)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Superior Court of New Hampshire · State Trial Courts
Decided
September 15, 1818
Citations
1 N.H. 198
Headnotes
Where a wife prajs for% divorce, on the ground of the voluntary absence of the husband for three years together, without making suitable provision for her support, it must appear that the husband has been possessed of property out of which he might have made such provision ; otherwise a divorce will not be decreed.
Summary
THIS was a libel for a divorce, a vinculo. The libellant alleged, as a cause of divorce, that her husband, the said S. F., had willingly absented himself from her for the space of three years together, without making suitable provision for her support and maintenance, although it was in his power so to do. It appeared from the testimony, that the said S. F. was a laboring man, and that during his absence he had been in good health and able to labor, but it did not appear that he had been possessed of any property whatever.

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.

Per curiam.

The evidence is not sufficient to authorize us to decree a divorce in this case. No neglect of a husband in cases of this kind, to make provision for his wife’s support, is a good cause of divorce, unless it was in his power so to do : and we are of opinion that the husband cannot be considered as having the power to make such provision, within the meaning of the statute, unless he has property. It is not enough to shew that he has been able to labor; it must be distinctly shewn that he has actually had property sufficient to enable him to make such provision.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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