Sullivan v Sullivan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Date | 01 January 1824 |
| Court | Arches Court |
English Reports Citation: 162 E.R. 303
ARCHES COURT
[299] sullivan v. sullivan. Arches Court, Michaelmas Teim, By-Day, 1824.- The mere desertion of a wife by the husband, though a malicious desertion, will not bar a sentence of divorce at the suit of the husband on proof of adultery committed by the wife -The long absence of the husband from, held not to be a desertion of the wife in the particular case, and the sentence held not to be barred, as insisted, by any part of the husband's conduct towards the wife, her adultery being proved. [Eeferred to, Fearmi v. Bail of Aylesfwd, 1884, 14 Q. B D. 792 ] (By letters of request from the archdeacon of Buckingham ) This was a cause of separation a mensa et thoro by reason of adultery, promoted by John Augustus Sullivan against his wife, Maria Sullivan. Judgment-Sir John Nwlwll. This is a suit of divorce, brought by the husband Church [I Bl. Rep. 367], and that of Bitt v. Barton [Doug. 171]. And Lord Kenyon has declared m a case at nisi pnus [Espin. 1, 214] that, though the marriage act had introduced a register of marriages, registration made no part of the validity of a marriage, but only went in proof of it, and that since, as well as before the passing of that act, cohabitation, reputation, mutual acknowledgments, &c weie good and available evidence of a marriage though no register whatever was produced. 304 SULLIVAN V. SULLIVAN 2ADB.300, against the wife by reason of adultery. It is admitted that the proofs of adultery are complete if the identity of a female, whose history is given in the depositions, and of Maria Sullivan, wife of the party promoting, and the party proceeded against in this suit, be established in a manner satisfactory to the Court. But of this identity I entertain no doubt, either legal or moral, on the proofs-any more than I do of the diversity of the husband, and of a person whose intercourse with the wife is proved to have been such as fixes upon the wife (that diversity being also proved) the charge of adultery. The marriage of the parties took place in July, 1816; from and after which they cohabited for a short time, and mutually acknowledged each other as husband and wife. A suit was then instituted by the father of the husband (a minor at that time of the age of 17 or 18) to annul the marriage, as celebrated by banns not published in the true names of one of the patties-unquestionably a sufficient ground of nullity had the fact so been. But at the bearing of the cause, in the [300] month of June, 1818, the judge of the Court in which that suit was instituted pronounced for the validity of the marriage-and the sentence so had on appeal to this Court was affirmed also in the month of June in the following year. It was then appealed, namely, from the sentence of this Court to the High Court of Delegates, nor was that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P. O'D v A. O'D
...1 Fam. L.J. 14. Olympia Productions Ltd. v. Mackintosh [1992] I.L.R.M. 204. O'Neill v. Ryan [1993] I.L.R.M. 557. Sullivan v. Sullivan 2 Addams 299. Wilson v. Wilson (1848) 1 H.L.C. 538. Family law - Judicial separation - Ancillary relief - Nature of decree - Separation agreement - Whether c......
-
O'D v O'D
...LAW REFORM ACT 1989 S16 COURTNEY V COURTNEY 1923 2 IR 31 CLARKE V CLARKE 10 PD 188 HUNT V HUNT 4 DE G F & J 221 SULLIVAN V SULLIVAN 2 ADDAMS 299 MORTIMER V MORTIMER 2 HAGG CONSIST REP 310 MACMAHON V MACMAHON; PURSER V PURSER 1913 1 IR 428 FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE OF SPOUSES & CHILDREN) ACT ......
-
The Honourable Dame Anne Boscawen or Warrender, - Appellant; The Right Honourable Sir George Warrender, of Lochend, Bart., - Respondent
...or Act of Parliament, Mortimer v. Mortimer, 2 Hagg. 318., King v. Sansom, 3 Add. 277., Beeby v. Beeby, 1 Hagg. 142., Sullivan v. Sullivan, 2 Add. 299.: that Courts of Equity are scrupulous in the execution of deeds of separation, Wilkes v. Wilkes, 2 Dick. 791., Legard v. Johnston, Ves. 352.......
-
The Hon. Lady Anne Warrender, - Appellant; The Right Hon sir George Warrender, Bart., - Respondent
...Tovey v. Lindsay (1 Dow, 117) in this House, and wa,s not affected by the cases of Beeby v. Beeby (1 Hagg. 142), Sullivan: v. Sullivan (2 Addams, 299), Worrall v. Jacob (3 Meriv. 256), or the passages which [499] may be cited for the Respondent from Roper's Law of Property of Husband and Wi......