Cited by

Although this case involves no physical abuse in the form of actual *497 or threatened violence, the court’s finding of cruel and inhuman treatment is based on the type of misconduct defined in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400, 404 , , as— “* * * other equivalent and serious misconduct which, unjustified in fact, is so plainly subversive of the relationship of husband and wife as to make it impossible that the duties of married life should be discharged, or its objects attained, and to be so

See, Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , , and Wilson v. Wilson, 229 Minn. 126 , 38 N. W. (2d) 154 .

Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Hrdlicka v. Hrdlicka, 171 Minn. 213 , ; Eller v. Eller, 182 Minn. 133 , .

Cruel and inhuman treatment so as to justify a divorce is defined in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400, 404 , , as follows: “* * * There are two well-recognized classes of such misconduct.

11 Such conduct is defined in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400, 404 , .

The first is actual or threatened physical violence, and the second is a course of conduct which has been defined as (Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400, 404 , ): “* * * other equivalent and serious misconduct, which, unjustified in fact, is so plainly subversive of the relationship of husband and wife as to make it impossible that the duties of married life *129 should be discharged, or its objects attained, and to be so hopelessly inimical to the

Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , .

2 Crowley v. Crowley, 219 Minn. 341, 349 , 18 N. W. (2d) 40, 44 ; Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; O’Neil v. O’Neil, 148 Minn. 381 , ; Tschida v. Tschida, 170 Minn. 235 , ; Eller v. Eller, 182 Minn. 133 , ; Locksted v. Locksted, 208 Minn. 551 , ; see, 16 Minn. L. Rev. 256 , for summary of Minnesota cases; 2 Dunnell, Dig.

As stated in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , : “Cruel and inhuman treatment * * * consists of * * * such * * " equivalent and serious misconduct which, unjustified in fact, is so plainly subversive of the relationship of husband and wife as to make it impossible to discharge the duties of .

James v. James, 179 Minn. 266 , ; Brodsky v. Brodsky, 172 Minn. 250 , ; Tschida v. Tschida, 170 Minn. 235 , ; Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Hertz v. Hertz, 126 Minn. 65 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

A divorce is justified on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment within the principle of cases like Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , , though there was no physical ill treatment or cruelty or abuse.

Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Bechtel v. Bechtel, 101 Minn. 511 , , 12 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Bechtel v. Bechtel, 101 Minn. 511 , , 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1100; Martinson v. Martinson, 116 Minn. 128 , ; Hertz v. Hertz, 126 Minn. 65 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 127 Minn. 96 , .

Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , .

Clark v. Clark, 114 Minn. 22 , ; Spratt v. Spratt, 140 Minn. 510 , , ; Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 127 Minn. 96 , ; O’Neil v. O’Neil, 148 Minn. 381 , ; Haskell v. Haskell, 119 Minn. 484 , ; Id.

The evidence brings the case within the rule of Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , , and Bechtel v. Bechtel, 101 Minn. 511 , , 12 L.R.A.(N.S.)

The doctrine that unfounded accusations of infidelity made by a wife against a husband may constitute cruel and inhuman treatment was thoroughly established in this state by the elaborate opinion of Mr. Justice Jaggard in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 100 , .

1100; Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , ; Widstrand v. Widstrand, 87 Minn. 136 , .

aining to such assaults and failure is so interrelated with evidence as to other misconduct, that it is impossible to see how the limited divorce is sustained by the record, in view of the express findings of the court that those charges of assault and refusal of medical aid were untrue, or to hold that they constitute cruel and inhuman'treatment, as this court defined it in Williams v. Williams, 101 Minn. 400 , .

It is true there was no physical violence - inflicted upon plaintiff, nor is there any finding that defendant’s misconduct impaired her health, yet within the case of Williams v. Williams, supra, p. 400, , his conduct in driving her from his home, compelling her to remove to Massachusetts, there to remain under threat of withdrawing all allowance for her support, coupled with other slights and acts of ill treatment leading up to her expulsion from the state, was sufficient to justify the limited