Flood v. Flood
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 21 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Clancy on Husband and Wife, pp. 32, 401. Act of December 20, 1800, 1 M. 4- B., 121. Acts of 1812 and 1819. 2 B. Mon., 370; McCrocklin vs. McGrocklin. 4 Dana, 140; Simpson vs. Simpson. Revised Statutes, secs. 6, 8, chap. 47. 6 Am. Law Reg.
Read the full summary
CASE 21 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT. CITED— Clancy on Husband and Wife, pp. 32, 401. Act of December 20, 1800, 1 M. 4- B., 121. Acts of 1812 and 1819. 2 B. Mon., 370; McCrocklin vs. McGrocklin. 4 Dana, 140; Simpson vs. Simpson. Revised Statutes, secs. 6, 8, chap. 47. 6 Am. Law Reg. (Nov., 1866), page 628; Bowman vs. Worthington. 10 Gray, 222; Albu vs. Wayman. 4 Swaby's 4' Tris tarn's R., 411; Fisher vs. Fisher. 4 Swaby's Tristam's R., 180; Sidney vs. Sidney. CITED— Rev. Stat., Act of 1854, 2 Slant., 29, art. 3, chap. 47; lb., 21. 3 P. Williams, 269; Sidney vs. Sidney.…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Williams
This case presents an anomalous history of domestic discord between husband and wife, first resulting in a divorce from bed and board, and then from the bonds of matrimony. After having two children by her husband, the appellee brought suit against him in the Bullitt circuit court for alimony and divorce, charging inhuman treatment, such as to show a settled aversion to her, destructive permanently of her happiness; to which he responded, not only denying the charges, but retorting upon her improper and lascivious conduct. This suit was amicably arranged, and the parties returned to conjugal…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Moayon v. MoayonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Weber v. WeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Irwin v. IrwinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899
- McNutt v. McNuttSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.