Docket No. 84 | Mich. | Mar 30, 1922
The bill for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty was answered, and, after hearing, was dismissed. Plaintiff has appealed. The parties have a son and daughter, 84 and 35 years of age, respectively. Plaintiff was a successful, hard working farmer in Oakland county, and, aided by defendant, accumulated considerable property. Trouble began in 1915, when, as plaintiff claims, defendant refused to cohabit, and persisted in such refusal for three years. In 1918 he had an attorney write a letter to her calling her attention to her duties as a wife, and in February, 1919, he filed a bill for divorce, charging extreme cruelty. Soon thereafter an agreement was signed by the parties reciting that differences had arisen between them, that they desired to adjust these property matters, that plaintiff had previously conveyed to defendant 80 acres of land, that on that day he had conveyed to defendant and the children other lands (110 acres) and that defendant released and relinquished dower and all claims for alimony, expenses and maintenance. The said property at the
“That it was entirely up to the plaintiff as to whether or not he wished to continue the case.”
The parties then went to the Pacific coast, and were gone about three months, their relations being pleasant, and returned home. Soon thereafter, plaintiff claims, defendant again refused to cohabit, left-his room, and she again persisted in such refusal. Upwards of a year later he left home and filed this bill in March, 1921. The parties have lived apart since that date.
Other acts claimed as extreme cruelty are charged, such as continually ignoring him, refusing to appear in public with him, treating him as a hired man, and the use of language intended to hurt and offend.
Plaintiff’s testimony supports his claims and is corroborated in some particulars by the testimony of several of his neighbors. Defendant flatly contradicted plaintiff both as to his major and minor allegations of extreme cruelty, and she is likewise supported by the testimony of other witnesses, principally the daughter,’and perhaps the son. Upon the testimony alone respecting the allegations as to extreme cruelty á case of some difficulty is presented, but there are significant circumstances lending credibility to plaintiff’s claims. He caused- a letter to be sent to defendant in 1918 seeking a betterment of their, relations. He filed a bill for divorce in 1919 on similar grounds of extreme cruelty. He gave to defend
And a breach of the conditions of the condonation revived the grounds for divorce, alleged in the first bill. Creech v. Creech, 126 Mich. 267" court="Mich." date_filed="1901-04-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/creech-v-creech-7941001?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7941001">126 Mich. 267.
Reversed. Decree will be entered for plaintiff dissolving the marriage relation and without allowance of further property or money to defendant. The property already „given defendant will be regarded as a provision in lieu of dower to satisfy section 11436, 3 Comp. Laws 1915. No costs will be awarded.