Payne v. Payne
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county, by husband against wife, for an absolute divorce on the ground of defendant’s impotency. Appeal by defendant from an order refusing a new trial after a trial before Hooker, J., and judgment ordered for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The statute does not define the term “impotency,” but in the law of divorce it means want of potentia copulandi, and not merely incapacity for procreation. It is an incapacity that admits neither copulation nor procreation. And what the law refers to is capacity for copula vera, and not partial and imperfect or unnatural copulation. The incapacity must also be incurable. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div. § 765 et seq.; D — e v. A — g, 1 Rob. Ecc. 279. The nature of the case forbids a discussion of the evidence, but in our opinion it fully justified a finding that the defendant was “impotent” in the legal…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Wilson v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Heller v. HellerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Dolan v. DolanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1969
- Bunger v. BungerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- S v. SMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.