MCLAUGHLIN VS. MCLAUGHLIN (DIVORCE)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Reported at 48 Nev. 153, the case comprises several opinions. On motion for allowance (August 30, 1924, 228 P. 305): the appellant wife, having perfected her appeal from the order denying a new trial in the husband's Washoe County divorce action, obtained an order that respondent pay $50 per week for her support pending appeal (in lieu of $32 per week under the trial court's existing order; her need was shown and his ability appeared from his own affidavit valuing his worth at not more than $40,000, half of which - $20,000 - the trial court had required deposited as her property award before entry of decree), plus agreed sums of $360 (transcripts), $750 (counsel fees on appeal), and $40 (clerk's fees and incidentals), with support sums to be credited against the money judgment if the decree survived. On the merits (August 5, 1925, 238 P. 402): the court held (1) habitual, excessive, and intemperate use of morphine, standing alone, is not extreme cruelty under the Nevada statute, though accompanying cruelties and indignities persisted in may be; (2) Nevada practice knows no interlocutory decree of divorce, and the wife's voluntary discontinuance, with leave, of her Rhode Island petition carried the interlocutory decree out with the case, defeating her res judicata plea (see McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 44 R.I. 429, 117 A. 649); and (3) the trial judge committed reversible error in sustaining objections to cross-examination of the plaintiff on his domiciliary intention (ownership of Rhode Island property, retention of his home bank account), evidence bearing on whether his six-month Reno residence was merely colorable. The order denying a new trial was reversed and the cause remanded; one justice concurred solely on the cross-examination ground. Rehearing denied November 3, 1925; on costs (November 23, 1925, 240 P. 1115), the clerk's disallowance was overruled and the prevailing appellant's unobjected-to cost bill ordered taxed as claimed under court rule VI.

In plain language

James and Belle McLaughlin were Rhode Island spouses whose divorce fight moved to Nevada. In Rhode Island, the wife had won an interlocutory divorce decree with $20,000 in lieu of alimony under a stipulation, but before it could become final she withdrew (discontinued) her petition with the court's permission. Days later the husband left for Reno, arrived October 9, 1922, and two days after six months had passed he filed a Nevada divorce suit charging extreme cruelty (based largely on the wife's alleged morphine addiction) and desertion. The trial judge decided for the husband but withheld the decree until he deposited $20,000 - adjudged to be half the value of his property - with the court clerk. The wife's motion for a new trial was denied and she appealed. In the first reported opinion (August 30, 1924), the Supreme Court granted the wife's motion for allowances to prosecute her appeal: $50 per week for her support pending the appeal (raising the trial court's $32 per week), plus agreed sums of $360 for transcripts, $750 for her lawyers, and $40 for court fees - with the support payments to be deducted from her $20,000 judgment if the divorce survived the appeal. In the later merits opinion (August 5, 1925), the court reversed. It held that habitual, excessive use of morphine, standing alone, is not extreme cruelty under Nevada's statute; that the discontinued Rhode Island interlocutory decree did not bar the husband's Nevada suit; but that the trial judge committed reversible error by blocking cross-examination of the husband about whether his Nevada residence was genuine - questions about his Rhode Island property and bank account went to whether his Reno stay was merely colorable. The case was sent back, and a rehearing was denied.