Cain v. Cain
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Northern District; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; 1. The record and evidence constitute a conglomerated mass of generalities. Evasion of definiteness and lack of specific testimony as to the issues characterizes the record throughout its context.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Northern District; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor; 1. The record and evidence constitute a conglomerated mass of generalities. Evasion of definiteness and lack of specific testimony as to the issues characterizes the record throughout its context. The evidence fails to malee out a case of indignities such as to render life' intolerable. 91 Ark. 507; 104 Id. 303. The testimony of appellee shows that there was no malice or hate toward her by the husabnd. 105 Ark! 196. There was no proof of specific acts and language showing rudeness, contempt and indignities.…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This suit was instituted by the appellee against the appellant for divorce. Among other things she alleges as grounds for her divorce that during the year 1909, or later, the appellant began to use whiskey, and that his ill-treatment of appellee then began; that at first it was confined to the period of his drunkenness; that appellee submitted to it through a period of seven years, believing that appellant would be kind and good to her during his sober moments; that it was impossible for appellee to detail all of the humiliations and indignities to which she was subjected on account of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kurtz v. KurtzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Malone v. MaloneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Hall v. CoxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Dunn v. DunnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Walldren v. WalldrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933