JEWELL VS. JEWELL (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal by the defendant husband from a decree of divorce in favor of the plaintiff wife on the seventh statutory ground, neglect of the husband for one year to provide the common necessaries of life where the neglect is not the result of unavoidable poverty (Rev. Laws sec. 5838, subd. 7). Ducker, C.J. Held: the evidence sufficed - the action was commenced October 19, 1926; the husband gave the wife $100 in July 1925 and $100 in October 1925 and nothing thereafter in money, clothing, or provision; her only income for eight years was $65 per month from property found to be her separate property; the husband was able-bodied and earning $150 per month. The husband's contention that the failure was not willful (the wife made no demand during the year, and he professed willingness to support her) was rejected: the statute does not prescribe willful neglect as an element of the seventh ground; simple neglect, whether arising from shiftlessness or intention, is the conduct denounced, and where the husband is able to provide and fails to do so his good intentions are immaterial (Swain v. Swain, 45 Wash. 184, followed). Judgment affirmed.

In plain language

A wife won a divorce on the ground that her husband, though able-bodied, had failed for more than a year to provide her with the common necessities of life. The husband appealed, arguing the evidence did not show the kind of nonsupport the statute requires - he said he was willing to support his wife and had always met any demand she actually made. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The undisputed facts showed the husband gave his wife nothing after October 1925 (the suit was filed in October 1926), her only income was $65 a month from her own separate property, and he was an able-bodied man earning a $150 monthly salary. The court held that the statute does not require the neglect to be willful: simple neglect is enough, whether it comes from shiftlessness or intention. If a husband is able to provide and fails to do so, his good intentions are immaterial.