Supreme Court of Missouri, 1860

Simpson v. Simpson

Supreme Court of Missouri · Decided October 15, 1860 · Napton, Other

31 Mo. 24

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Dwyer v. Dwyer (Mo. Ct. App. 1885)
King v. King (Mo. Ct. App. 1964)
Price v. Price (Mo. Ct. App. 1955)
Campbell v. Campbell (Mo. Ct. App. 1955)
Hanover v. Hanover (Ohio Ct. App. 1929)
Mayberry v. Mayberry (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas 1927)
Nicholson v. Nicholson (Mo. Ct. App. 1924)
Hall v. Hall (W. Va. 1911)
Clark v. Clark (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
Boos v. Boos (Mo. Ct. App. 1901)
Rodgers v. Rodgers (Mo. Ct. App. 1900)
Davis v. Davis (Mo. Ct. App. 1895)
Droege v. Droege (Mo. Ct. App. 1893)
Kaster v. Kaster (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
Gilmer v. Gilmer (Mo. Ct. App. 1889)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Napton, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding by the husband to procure a divorce on the ground that his wife has absented herself, without a reasonable cause, for two years and more.

It appears that the parties were married in 1840 in the city of New York, whe.re they continued to reside for about ten years, during which time there were three children born of the marriage; that in 1850 they removed to Binghampton, a *26town in the interior of that state; that in 1852 the defendant returned to the city of New York with her children and has resided there in her mother’s house, until her recent removal to this state for the purpose of defending this suit. It does not appear very clearly whether the move to New York was designed as a temporary visit, or was intended to be a permanent separation; but it is quite apparent that, upon either supposition, it was made and continued with the consent of the plaintiff. There was, therefore, no ground for a divorce.

There is no evidence of any serious disagreement between the parties whilst they lived together, except what is to be inferred from the mere fact of separation. There was, however, abundant evidence to show that the defendant and her children were in very destitute circumstances, and received no assistance or support from the plaintiff. The circuit court, therefore, under the eleventh section of the act concerning divorce and alimony, decreed an annual allowance for the wife and children.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.