{
  "id": 208856,
  "name": "ELLA HAINES TIETZEL, Appellant, v. GEORGE R. TIETZEL, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tietzel v. Tietzel",
  "decision_date": "1913-03-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 1521",
  "first_page": "482",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.M. 482"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 Cal. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        1933370
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/42/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Tenn. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8537506
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/104/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N H. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Cal. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2202048
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/19/0626-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 la. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2320505
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/53/0511-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Colo. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        2587347
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/11/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Wash. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        5174736
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/28/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N. J. Eq. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Eq.",
      "case_ids": [
        514274
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj-eq/16/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N. H. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Minn. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        759648
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/53/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Mich. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1419317
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/61/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Conn. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        490608
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/61/0233-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 2489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.00818387481277866
    },
    "sha256": "f4fd2094aa1c24d999b0a2117bbe1f3c6d8ae6f8bf5d6fe3ec53c88e0502710b",
    "simhash": "1:e1bbb794641a3a59",
    "word_count": 427
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:20.218251+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELLA HAINES TIETZEL, Appellant, v. GEORGE R. TIETZEL, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nPARKER, J.\nThis is an appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County dismissing a bill of complaint for divorce. The court made findings of fact which would seem to present a serious question as to the correctness of the decree. Appellee claims, however, that the findings were inadvertently made by the court without notice to his counsel, and that they do not correctly represent the actual state of facts proved.\nUnder the circumstances, the validity of the decree being in doubt, we deem, it advisable to reverse the decree and remand the cause with instructions to proceed further, and it is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thos. N. Wliicerson, for Appellant.",
      "Wilson & Lewis, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 1521,\nMarch 4, 1913.]\nELLA HAINES TIETZEL, Appellant, v. GEORGE R. TIETZEL, Appellee.\nAppeal from District Court, Bernalillo County.\nThos. N. Wliicerson, for Appellant.\nAlthough a wife\u2019s separate estate is secured to her separate use the husband\u2019s common law dutjr to maintain her-during coverture and to provide family necessaries still remains. 4 Cye. p. 1444, note 85.\nSexual intercourse persisted in by the husband against the will of the wife to the injury of her health is cruelty affording grounds for divorce, if he knows or has reason to know the injury and suffering which his demands will' inflict upon her. .14 Cyc. 610; Mayhew v. Mayhew, 61 Conn. 233; Walsh v. Waish, 61 Mich. 554; Grant v. Grant,. 53 Minn. 181; Melvin v. Melvin, 58 N. H. 549; Mooresv. Mloores, 16 N. J. Eq. 275; Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Term. 401; McAllister v. McAllister, 28 Wash. 613; Sylvia, v. Sylvia, 11 Colo. 319; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 30 .Ivas. 712; Wheeler v. Wheeler, 53 la. 511.\nCruelty is such conduct in one of the married parties; as, to the reasonable apprehension of the other, or in fact, renders cohabitation physically unsafe to a degree justifying a withdrawal therefrom. Bishop on Marriage ancl Divorce, 6 ed.; If Cent. Dig. title \u201cDivorce,\u201d sec. 5f.\nA gross abuse of martial rights, resulting in injury or suffering to the wife, may constitute \u201ccruelty\u201d in the law and justify the wife in separating herself from her hus band. Moors v. Moors, 16 la. 2f9; Mahone v. Mahone 19 Cal. 626.\nWilson & Lewis, for Appellee.\nCruel and inhuman treatment. Mayhew v. Mayhew, 61 Conn. 233; Walsh v. Walsh, 61 Mich. 554; Grant v. Grant, 53 Minn. 181; Melvin v. Melvin, 58 N H. 549; Gardner v. Gardner, 104 Tenn. 401; McAllister v. McAllister, 28 Wash. 613.\nFailure to provide. 14 Cyc. 625; Bycraft v. Bycraft,, 42 Cal. 444; Washburn v. Washburn, 9 Cal. 4f5."
  },
  "file_name": "0482-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 483
}