From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Moore

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 12, 1949
179 F.2d 38 (D.C. Cir. 1949)

Opinion

No. 9996.

Argued October 31, 1949.

Decided December 12, 1949.

Mr. Herman Miller, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. James D. Graham, Jr., Washington, D.C. (appointed by this Court) for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PROCTOR, Circuit Judges.


Appellant attacks a limited divorce for cruelty, granted his wife, upon the ground of insufficient evidence to support the judgment.

The courts of this jurisdiction have held consistently that under its laws where there is no physical violence a divorce for cruelty will not lie unless the mistreatment has caused injury to the health of the complaining spouse.

Sec. 4, Act of June 19, 1860, 12 Stat. at Large, p. 59, 31 Stat. 1345, ch. 854, § 966, March 3, 1901, D.C. Code 1929, Tit. 14, § 63, 49 Stat. 539, ch. 453, § 1, Aug. 7, 1935, D.C. Code 1940, § 16 — 403.

Densmore v. Densmore, 1888, 6 Mackey 544, 17 D.C. 544; Ogden v. Ogden, 1900, 17 App.D.C. 104; Waltenberg v. Waltenberg, 1924, 54 App.D.C. 383, 298 F. 842; Trice v Trice, 1925, 55 App.D.C. 328, 5 F.2d 543; Taylor v. Taylor, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 316, 67 F.2d 582; Kimmell v. Kimmell, 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 177, 171 F.2d 340.

In the present case there was no physical violence or abuse, and no evidence that the wife's health had suffered by reason of the husband's mistreatment and neglect. In these circumstances it is clear that the charge of cruelty was not proved. Therefore, the judgment is

Reversed.

EDGERTON, J., concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Moore v. Moore

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 12, 1949
179 F.2d 38 (D.C. Cir. 1949)
Case details for

Moore v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:MOORE v. MOORE

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Dec 12, 1949

Citations

179 F.2d 38 (D.C. Cir. 1949)
86 U.S. App. D.C. 16

Citing Cases

Schreiber v. Schreiber

The above rule was repeated almost verbatim in Taylor v. Taylor, 62 App.D.C. 316, 67 F.2d 582, and in Kimmell…