Lefevre v. Lefevre

6 Citing cases

  1. McCullough v. McCullough

    120 Tex. 209 (Tex. 1931)   Cited 76 times
    In McCullough v. McCullough, 120 Tex. 209, 36 S.W.2d 459, 462, the court had this to say: "In our opinion the petition for divorce filed in the district court by the appellee was sufficient as against a general demurrer.

    Where the petition sets forth in full and clear statements, allegations of cruel treatment, proof as to render their living together insupportable, the question of what is meant by "insupportable" is a question of law, by the existence of the truth of the facts that amount to such outrages, making said living together insupportable, are for the jury to see from the evidence introduced. Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 36; Byrne v. Byrne, 3 Tex. 336; Sheffield v. Sheffild, 3 Tex. 79; Wright v. Wright, 3 Tex. 168; Nogees v. Nogees, 7 Tex. 538; Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451; Sapp v. Sapp, 8 S.W. 258; Eastman v. Eastman, 18 S.W. 1107; Jones v. Jones, 41 S.W. 413; Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451; Bush v. Bush, 103 S.W. 217; Golding v. Golding, 108 S.W. 496; Dawson v. Dawson, 132 S.W. 379; McNabb v. McNabb, 207 S.W. 129; Rowden v. Rowden, 212 S.W. 302; Burt v. Burt, 261 S.W. 406; Blake v. Blake, 263 S.W. 1075; Ellis v. Ellis, 251 S.W. 287; Lefevre v. Lefevre, 205 S.W. 842. MR. COMMISSIONER CRITZ delivered the opinion of the court.

  2. Hickman v. Hickman

    20 S.W.2d 1073 (Tex. Civ. App. 1929)   Cited 8 times

    While we have not attempted to set out all of the evidence tending to support the judgment of the trial court granting the divorce, we think the above is sufficiently full and satisfactory to authorize the judgment awarding appellee the divorce. Lefevre v. Lefevre (Tex, Civ, App.) 205 S.W. 842; Dawson v. Dawson, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 168, 132 S.W. 379; McNabb v. McNabb (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 129; Caywood v. Caywood (Tex.Civ.App.) 290 S.W. 889; Steele v. Steele (Tex.Civ.App.) 257 S.W. 300: Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 460; Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 87. In the last case above cited, our Supreme Court said: "It cannot be doubted that a series of studied vexations, and deliberate insults and provocations would, under our statute, be sufficient cause for divorce, without apprehension of personal violence, or bodily hurt.

  3. Bobbitt v. Bobbitt

    291 S.W. 964 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927)   Cited 5 times

    From the announcement by Chief Justice Hemphill, in the case of Sheffield v. Sheffield, 3 Tex. 79, until the present time, it has been an authorized construction of the abovequoted subdivision of our divorce statute that a series of studied, vexatious, and deliberate insults and provocations is sufficient cause for divorce without apprehension of personal violence or bodily hurt. Wright v. Wright, 6 Tex. 3; Nogees v. Nogees, 7 Tex. 538, 58 Am.Dec. 78; Eastman v. Eastman, 75 Tex. 473, 12 S.W. 1107; Bush v. Bush (Tex.Civ.App.) 103 S.W. 217; Le Fevre v. Le Fevre (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 842; McNabb v. McNabb (Tex.Civ.App.) 207 S.W. 129; Erwin v. Erwin (Tex.Civ.App.) 231 S.W. 834; Ellis v. Ellis (Tex.Civ.App.) 251 S.W. 287; Burt v. Burt (Tex.Civ.App.) 261 S.W. 407; Blake v. Blake (Tex. Civ App.) 263 S.W. 1075; Tinnon v. Tinnon (Tex.Civ.App.) 278 S.W. 288. The test to be applied under the terms of the statute is that, before a divorce may be decreed, the ill treatment must be of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.

  4. Burt v. Burt

    261 S.W. 407 (Tex. Civ. App. 1924)   Cited 6 times

    " To the same effect, under even more direct and positive pronouncements, are the holdings of our courts in Wright v. Wright, 6 Tex. at page 19; Eastman v. Eastman, 75 Tex. 473, 12 S.W. 1107; Dawson v. Dawson, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 168, 132 S.W. at page 3S1; Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451; Golding v. Golding (Tex.Civ.App.) 108 S.W. at page 498; Bahn v. Bahn, 62 Tex. 518, 50 Am.Rep. 539; Speer on Marital Rights in Texas, at pages 371 and 672; Le Fevre v. Le Fevre (Tex.Civ.App.) 205 S.W. 842. In the case of Golding v. Golding, supra, the court used this language:

  5. Ellis v. Ellis

    251 S.W. 287 (Tex. Civ. App. 1923)   Cited 6 times

    Wounded feelings and pride and mental distress occasioned to the wife by a long-continued course of misbehavior on the part of the husband does, generally speaking, constitute the misconduct contemplated by the statutes that would "render their living together insupportable." Eastman v. Eastman, 75 Tex. 473, 12 S.W. 1107; Lefevre v. Lefevre (Tex. Civ. App.) 205 S.W. 842; Erwin v. Erwin (Tex Civ. App.) 231 S.W. 834. As to whether or not a jury or the trial judge would conclude that such alleged acts constitute, in point of fact, misconduct of such a nature as to render further living together of husband and wife insupportable, is quite another question.

  6. McNabb v. McNabb

    207 S.W. 129 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918)   Cited 27 times

    The above case appears to have been followed by our courts; but there have been a few discordant notes. Wiright v. Wright, 6 Tex. 3; Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451; Sharman v. Sharman, 18 Tex. 526; Williams v. Williams, 67 Tex. 198, 2 S.W. 823; Shook v. Shook, 125 S.W. 638; Aycock v. Aycock, 131 S.W. 1139; Dawson v. Dawson, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 168, 132 S.W. 379; Smith v. Smith, 200 S.W. 1129; Bahn v. Bahn, 62 Tex. 518, 50 Am.Rep. 539; Rivers v. Rivers, 133 S.W. 525; Le Fevre v. Le Fevre, 205 S.W. 842. Judge Speer says in his work (Law of Marital Rights, ยง 526, p. 674): "It has been suggested that, where the evidence fails to show physical violence by the husband towards the wife, and fails to show such cruel treatment of her as to produce such a degree of mental distress as would threaten to impair her health, it would be insufficient; but this is not the test.