MCALLISTER VS. MCALLISTER (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Appeal by the plaintiff husband from a judgment of dismissal presenting the single question whether the complaint stated a cause of action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Norcross, J., summarized the allegations: persistent gross uncleanliness of person and household, vituperation upon remonstrance, grossly immodest exposure of the defendant's person to neighbors and men servants against plaintiff's protest, and persistent profane, vulgar, obscene language and stories before the children (requiring removal of the daughter), all reiterated daily and frequently several times a day from shortly after the marriage, unprovoked and increasing, destroying plaintiff's happiness, wrecking his home life, shattering his nerves, impairing his health, causing grievous mental worry and torment, and ending cohabitation on or about December 15, 1906. Held, under the court's prior decisions and the trend of modern authorities, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, citing Reed v. Reed, 4 Nev. 395; Kelly v. Kelly, 18 Nev. 49, 1 Pac. 194; Gardner v. Gardner, 23 Nev. 207, 45 Pac. 139; Kapp v. District Court, 31 Nev. 444, 103 Pac. 235; Mosher v. Mosher, 16 N.D. 269; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 30 Kan. 712; Barnes v. Barnes, 95 Cal. 171; Nelson on Divorce, secs. 251, 265, 275, 310, 316. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

In plain language

A husband sued for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. His complaint alleged a long, daily course of conduct by his wife: persistent gross uncleanliness in her person and household duties, berating him when he objected, immodest exposure of her person to neighbors and servants over his protest, and constant profane, vulgar and obscene language and stories in front of the children - to the point that he removed his daughter from her mother's influence. He alleged the conduct ran through the whole marriage, was unprovoked, grew worse, destroyed his happiness and home life, shattered his nerves and impaired his health, and caused him to stop cohabiting with her around December 15, 1906. The trial court dismissed the case, holding the complaint insufficient, and he appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. Consistent with its earlier decisions and the modern trend of authority recognizing that cruelty can consist of a course of conduct inflicting mental suffering and injuring health, the court held it could not be said as a matter of law that such a complaint fails to state a cause of action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The case was sent back for further proceedings.