Barrere v. Barrere
New York Court of Chancery
4 Johns Ch. 187 (1819)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Mrs. Barrere (plaintiff) sued to divorce Mr. Barrere (defendant) on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and upon proof of numerous acts of violence and brutality committed by Mr. Barrere during the spring and summer of 1818. Mr. Barrere argued that his conduct was due to Mrs. Barrere’s disobedience and provoking language. After their last altercation, in which Mr. Barrere struck his wife, dragged her across the floor by her hair, and was prevented from beating her with a stick only by the intervention of a third party, Mrs. Barrere left the couple’s home and took their only child, a two-year-old son, with her. Mrs. Barrere alleged that she believed she would be endangered by remaining with her husband and that his violent example would be injurious to their child. She sought a decree of separation from bed and board in which the parties would remain married but without cohabitation. Mrs. Barrere also sought custody of their son and payment of a sum sufficient to maintain herself and the child. Mr. Barrere, the keeper of an ale house, agreed to the decree of separation but sought custody of the child and requested that he not be required to provide maintenance for his wife. Mr. Barrere’s income and assets were such that he could support his wife and child in a separate residence but not without some difficulty.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.