Farrow v. Farrow [1920] ScotLR 656 (26 June 1920)

Farrow v. Farrow [1920] ScotLR 656 (26 June 1920)

The pursuer failed to prove that he made a bona fide and reasonable effort to induce the defender to return to cohabitation. The offers to resume cohabitation were not genuine but were made only in response to claims for aliment, and the evidence showed that the separation continued by mutual consent. There was no remonstrance or manifested desire for adherence by the pursuer, and thus the statutory requirements for divorce on the ground of desertion were not met.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 656
Parties
Pursuer: Charles Morris Farrow; Defender: Mrs Annie Brodie or Farrow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 June 1920
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved); action for divorce dismissed.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Desertion, Mutual Separation, Aliment, Bona Fide Offer to Resume Cohabitation
Family Law Divorce Desertion Mutual Separation Aliment Bona Fide Offer to Resume Cohabitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Morris Farrow

Pursuer

Mrs Annie Brodie or Farrow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender (wife) was in wilful and malicious desertion for more than four years
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer (husband) made a bona fide and reasonable effort to induce the defender to return to cohabitation
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's offers to resume cohabitation were genuine or merely tactical to avoid aliment liability

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that he made a bona fide and reasonable effort to induce the defender to return to cohabitation. The offers to resume cohabitation were not genuine but were made only in response to claims for aliment, and the evidence showed that the separation continued by mutual consent. There was no remonstrance or manifested desire for adherence by the pursuer, and thus the statutory requirements for divorce on the ground of desertion were not met.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved); action for divorce dismissed.

Orders

  • Reclaiming note refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defender assoilzied; pursuer's pleas repelled; defender awarded expenses.