About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


40 Dick. L. Rev. 92 (October 1935 to May 1936)
The Meaning of Condonation in the Law of Divorce

handle is hein.journals/dlr40 and id is 98 raw text is: THE MEANING OF CONDONATION IN THE LAW OF DIVORCE FRANK EUGENE READER* The doctrine that the condonation of a marital offense, constituting a ground for divorce, will bar the condoning spouse from thereafter relying on that offense to obtain a divorce, had its origin in the English Canon Law, being applied by the Ecclesiastical courts in the disposition of petitions for divorce a mensa et thoro.' From an early period in this country condonation was applied by the courts as a defense to divorce, it being recognized and received as a part of the common law.2 Today condonation is specifically mentioned in the divorce statutes of twenty-seven states. For the most part these provisions are brief and general in terms and have had little or no effect upon the decisions, the courts construing such provisions as merely declaratory of the Canon Law doctrine;8 and it has been held that the doctrine will be applied even though no mention is made of it in the divorce statute.4 There are many subsidiary rules and ramifications of the doctrine; such as the rule that condonation is conditional upon the wrongdoer thereafter treating the injured spouse with conjugal kindness;5 that there can be no condonation without knowledge of the nffens e6 tht it ri lp he lv,-,,f 7 4nA ,;1] , A1- *A. B., The College of Wooster, 1928; LL. B., University of Pennsylvania, 1931; Professor of Law, Dickinson School of Law, 1932-; Member of Pennsylvania Bar. 1Worsley v. Worsley, 2 Lee 572, 161 Eng. Rep. 444 (1730); Beeby v. Beeby, I Hag. Eec. 7S9, 162 Eng. Rep. 755 (1799). The case of Durant v. Durant, 1 Hag. Ecc. 733, 162 Eng. Rep. 734 (1825), contains a full and excellent discussion of the law of condonation as administered by the Ecclesiastical courts. 2Anonymous, 6 Mass. 147 (1809); Delliber v. Delliber, 9 Conn. 233 (1832). 8See 2 Vernier, American Family Laws (1932) 79, for a resume of the statutes. The Cali- fornia statute has a very complete provision as to condonation and the statutes of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are copied from it. 4Turnbull v. Turnbull, 23 Ark. 615 (1861) ; and see cases cited infra from District of Columbia, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, in none of which states is there any statutory provision concerning condonation. 5Robbins v. Robbins, 100 Mass. 150, 97 Am. Dec. 91 (1868) ; Mosher v. Mosher, 16 N. D. 269, 113 N. XX. 99 (1907); Holt v. Holt, 77 Fed. (2) 538 (1935). 6Rogers v.. Rogers, 122 Mass. 423 (1877); Frank v. Frank, 99 Pa. Super. 183 (1930). lRex v. Rex, 39 Ohio App. 295, 177 N. E. 527 (1930); Leech v. Leech, 82 N. J. Eq. 472, 89 Ad. 51 (1913).