Perry v. Perry
1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 516, 1846 N.Y. LEXIS 323, 1 Barb. Ch. 516 (1846)
Rule of Law:
In a husband's bill for discovery and relief against his wife, charges detailing a continuous course of bad conduct by the wife towards the husband and those under his protection, suggesting it is unsafe for him to cohabit with her, are pertinent and proper to establish a claim for relief.
Facts:
- The wife drove the husband’s sick daughter C. from her bed, beat and wounded her, and violently forced her to leave the house, potentially shortening her life by breaking her ribs.
- The wife drove the husband’s son from the house while he was suffering from consumption.
- The wife severely beat and lacerated her own grown-up son, confining him to the house for several days.
- The wife's conduct towards the husband’s dying daughter M. was so violent that the husband had to secure M.'s room with locks and bolts whenever he left home to protect her.
- The wife's conduct towards a clergyman, who was administering religious consolations to the dying daughter M., compelled the clergyman to discontinue his visits.
- The wife beat her own grown-up daughter, pulled out a handful of her hair, injured her so severely that she fainted, struck her violently, threw a cup of tea in her face, struck her head with an earthen vessel, threw her on the floor, and jumped on her.
- The wife severely beat a child indentured to her, leading to the child being discharged by magistrates.
- The wife attacked a workman employed by the husband with dangerous weapons and drove him from the house, and her violence disturbed the husband, compelling him to abandon accustomed family worship.
Procedural Posture:
- A husband (complainant) filed a 'bill for discovery and relief' against his wife (defendant).
- The wife filed 'exceptions for impertinence' to various charges made in the husband's bill, arguing they were irrelevant.
- An 'exception master' reviewed the wife's exceptions and allowed them, agreeing that the charges were impertinent.
- The husband then filed exceptions to the master's report, challenging the master's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are charges describing a wife's repeated violent and abusive conduct towards family members and others, in addition to her husband, pertinent to a husband's bill for discovery and relief against his wife?
Opinions:
Majority - The Chancellor
Yes, charges describing a continuous course of bad conduct by the wife towards the husband and those under his protection are pertinent to a husband's bill for discovery and relief against his wife. The court reasoned that while a single act or series of violent acts by the wife towards the husband might not suffice if the husband can protect himself, a continued course of bad conduct towards the husband and those under his care, making cohabitation unsafe, is material. The charges detailed in the bill, if proven, would strongly suggest the husband's life would be in danger if he continued to reside with her, even after exercising his marital power to protect others. Such facts are considered proper subjects of proof in the cause, as they significantly influence the character of any acts of personal violence committed against the complainant himself. The court cited Story's Eq. Pl. and Hawley v. Wolverton in support of stating such facts in a bill for discovery and relief.
Analysis:
This case broadens the scope of 'cruelty' or 'misconduct' that can justify a husband seeking equitable relief against his wife. It establishes that violence and abuse directed at other family members or household occupants, rather than solely the complainant, can be pertinent if it forms part of a pattern of conduct that renders cohabitation unsafe for the complainant. This decision implies that the court would consider the overall domestic environment and the husband's ability to protect himself and his household in determining the gravity of the wife's actions, potentially impacting future cases involving domestic violence or marital separation based on harmful conduct not directly against the petitioning spouse.
