Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman

by Albert Sidney Bolles

A wife who voluntarily enters into an agreement of separation covering all property rights cannot, after her husband's death, have it set aside and then claim her rights in his estate, except in some states where community rights exist. On the other hand, her right to share in her husband's estate is not lost though she lives apart from him by agreement, unless this shows a clear intention to relinquish all claims to his estate.

The husband must support his wife. This is the law everywhere. While they live together the law presumes that he has given her authority to purchase necessaries on his credit, and therefore a tradesman can recover who shows that they were thus living and that the things furnished befitted their condition in life. When she is living apart from her husband the presumption is the other way, and a tradesman cannot recover without proof of the fact of her husband's authority to let her have the goods. But when she is living apart from him for good cause, and would starve if the things needful to sustain life did not come from some source, she has an absolute right to pledge her husband's credit for them.

What are the things for which she may pledge her husband's credit? Those required to sustain life and preserve decency, besides other things to maintain her in her social condition. Wearing apparel, furniture, jewelry, even legal expenses incurred in regaining her conjugal rights have been included.

Besides agreements to live separately, the law for several causes permits absolute separation. These are prescribed by statute, and vary greatly in the different states. Adultery is a cause recognized in all of them, for which an absolute divorce can be granted. Cruelty is another cause, almost as general, though more difficult to define. Actual violence is not necessary to constitute cruelty, threats of violence with an intention to do bodily harm will suffice. Again, the cruelty must be unmerited. If she has justly provoked the indignation of her husband, then his cruelty presents a different aspect. Nevertheless, if his cruelty bears no relation to her wrongful beginnings, she still has good ground for separation.

Desertion is a general ground of divorce, the law in every state prescribing a period of time, quite often three years. The period must be continuous. An offer to return made by the deserted spouse in good faith at any time before the separation has run for the statutory period will bar a divorce, but not if the offer is made afterward. Again, a husband who drives his wife away from him by his misconduct deserts her as clearly as if he had left her. To cease living together for the time fixed by statute is not desertion unless this was done intentionally. For example, separation on account of business, sickness, etc., is not desertion. Not only must there be an intention to leave the other party, this must be without consent.

Another cause for divorce, quite generally recognized, is habitual drunkenness. This must be of a gross and confirmed nature. While other causes exist the most general have now been mentioned. In some states there is a more general ground, any reason rendering married life a failure. Of course, much depends on the discretion, mental and moral make-up of a judge in applying the facts to a cause for separation that is so general. An agreement in advance to make a cause of divorce is everywhere condemned by the law.

Divorces are of two kinds: from the bond of marriage, often called absolute divorces, which put an end to the marriage relation and render the parties single; and divorces from bed and board, limited divorces, more accurately called judicial separations, in which the marriage relation is not dissolved, but the injured party is given the right to live separate from the other. In more than half of the American states no distinction is made between kind of divorce, all divorces are absolute, from the bond of marriage.

The legal effect of divorces is still a grave matter. When a divorce has been legally granted by a state, the courts of every other state for obvious reasons recognize and try to uphold the decree or judgment, though not all of them, and consequently strange results follow. Thus a person who was married and living in New York leaves his wife for good reason and goes to Connecticut. After acquiring a legal residence there and proper standing in a court, he applies for a divorce, the proceedings are regular in every respect and a divorce is granted. He marries again and takes his wife to New York for a visit. There he is sued by the first wife for support, moreover, by the laws of New York he is an adulterer. In New York he is still married to the first wife, in Connecticut to the second. If children are born of the second marriage they are legitimate as long as they live in Connecticut, illegitimate should they go to New York. One of the latest legal writers on this difficult subject says: "Foreign divorce judgments granted in states where the plaintiff had obtained an actual, bona fide residence, will doubtless continue to be recognized by the great majority of our states, but the states of New York, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and possibly some other states, which have adopted the extreme New York doctrine, are permitted by the rule established in the Haddock case—a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States—to continue to refuse recognition of divorce judgments in other states."

Innkeeper.—An innkeeper's house is a public place to which travelers may resort. He cannot therefore prohibit persons who come under that character in a proper manner and at suitable times from entering, so long as he can accommodate them. He is not obliged to receive one who cannot pay for his entertainment. Indeed, he must exclude some persons who apply, notably thieves. He can refuse to admit all whom he has reason to believe will disturb the peace and safety of his guests; and can afterward exclude all who, though admitted, prove to be noisy and disturbers of the comfort and safety of others. And if having a stable he is under the same obligation to receive and care for horses as he is to receive the person to whom they belong. Again, he is not required to provide a guest with the precise room he may select, but only reasonable and proper accommodations. If he refuses to do so he is liable in law to the applicant.

In caring for the baggage of a guest, the law is not as well settled as it might be. A competent writer has said: "They are insurers of the property of their guests committed to their care, and are liable for its loss, unless caused by the act of God, a public enemy, or the neglect or fault of the owner or his servants." This strictness of liability, it is said is necessary to protect travelers against any collusion between the innkeeper and his servants, and to compel him to take care that no improper persons are admitted into his house. His charge for the entertainment of his guests is sufficient to cover this risk; he also has a lien on their property entrusted to his care to indemnify him against loss.