Dunn v. Dunn (1882) · DecisionDepot

Dunn v. Dunn

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Nov 23, 1882 No. No. 8,163Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a divorce based on habitual intemperance requires a finding that the condition persisted for at least one year, as mandated by statute. Because the lower court failed to make such a finding, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

Issues

Whether the defendant's habitual intemperance continued for the statutory period of one year required for a divorce.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is in the case before us no finding that the habitual intemperance of which the defendant was found guilty had continued for the period of one year, for which reason we are bound to remand the cause.”

Synopsis

Appeal by the defendant, D. G. Dunn, from a judgment in the Superior Court of the County of Placer. Myers, J.

Action against the defendant, D. G. Dunn, for a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance. The answer of the defendant denied all of the allegations of the complaint relating to intemperance. The case in the Court below was tried before a jury, and upon the question of intemperance two special .issues were submitted by the Court to the jury— •that is to say: 1. Was the defendant, D. G. Dunn, so addicted to the use of intoxicating drinks that he was disqualified a great portion of his time from properly attending to business ? 2. Was the defendant, D. G. Dunn, guilty of the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors to such a degree as to inflict upon the plaintiff, Mrs. Eva Dunn, a course of great mental anguish ? The jury answered both in the affirmative. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. The judgment recited that it was based on the findings of the jury.

The Court: The ground relied on by the plaintiff for divorce was the alleged habitual intemperance of the defendant. Section 106 of the Civil Code declares that “habitual intemperance is that degree of intemperance from the use of intoxicating drinks which disqualifies the person a great portion of the time from properly attending to business, or which would reasonably inflict a course of great mental anguish upon the innocent party;" and the following section declares that such intemperance must continue for one year, before it is a ground for divorce. There is in the case before us no finding that the habitual intemperance of which the defendant was found guilty had continued for the period of one year, for which reason we are bound to remand the cause. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Dunn v. Dunn

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief