Fries v. Fries

Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The three appeals on this record relate to the alimony and divorce suits of Veronica E. Fries- and John Fries, her husband. The proceedings were begun by the bill of complaint of the wife against the husband for permanent alimony on the ground of a desertion of the wife by the husband and his cruelty. While this suit was pending, the husband filed a bill of complaint for an absolute divorce, because of the desertion by him of his wife for the statutory period of three years and of her alleged adultery.

The two causes were consolidated, and the testimony was- taken before the chancellor, whose decree dismissed the bill of complaint of the wife, and granted the husband a divorce a vinculo matrimonii from his wife on the sole ground of her desertion of him; and charged the husband with the support of the minor child of the parties. Two appeals were taken from this decree; one by the wife and the other by the husband, whose cross-appeal is because the chancellor did not find the wife guilty of adultery as- well as of desertion. The- court is in full accord with the finding of the chancellor that the evidence fails to prove adultery by the wife, but, even if its conclusion on this issue were different from that of the chancellor, the appeal of the husband could not be entertained. The decree was- not adverse, but established ⁶⁰⁶ his right to an absolute divorce and settled the entire cause.

He can gain no* more by an appeal than the decree granted, and therefore the particular ground upon which the chancellor based the decree for divorce is* not a matter for appeal by the husband. His appeal, which is Ho*. 44 on the docket of this court for the current term, will therefore be dismissed. Miller's Equity, sec. 362. 'Since the court agrees with the chancellor that the charge of the wife’s adultery was not established, the decree of divorce cannot be supported unless the proof is that the wife abandoned the husband, and that this abandonment has continued uninterruptedly for at least three years before the filing of the suit, and is deliberate and final, and that the separation of the parties is beyond any reasonable expectation of reconciliation. Code, art. 16, sec. 38.

The marriage was on September 9th, 1908, and the parties cohabited until December 1st, 1928. A minor child is their sole issue, and this daughter is so crippled by infantile paralysis as to be wholly dependent for her support. The testimony shows that the domestic life of the spouses became increasingly unhappy, but, until the final breach, their differences' were not of a nature to give either the husband or the wife a sufficient reason for separation. The husband is a fireman in the Baltimore Oity fire department, and, according to his contention, gave his wife all he reasonably could every pay day, but she demanded all, and proposed to allow him what she thought would be sufficient for his use.

The wife admitted that her husband gavq her money, but asserted that it was inadequate, and that their troubles arose over their controversy in respect to this inadequacy, and that, finally, because of his not furnishing her with what she* considered was a sufficient allowance, she declined sexual intercourse, and left the house on the night of December 1st, 1928, after a bitter* quarrel. The husband and the wife ascribe her leaving the home to the fault of the other. There is testimony that the husband would become gngry in the bimonthly disputes with his wife on pay day, ⁶⁰⁷ and liis violence was displayed, according to- this evidence, in the breaking of dishes and the angry destruction of other