Hansley v. Hansley: 1849

The case went before the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Presiding as chief justice was Thomas Ruffin, the most influential judge in the pre-Civil War South. The lawyers for both Mr. and Mrs. Hansley were distinguished attorneys and former U.S. Senators.

After hearing the arguments of each side and considering the legal authorities cited by the lawyers, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to overturn the trial court's decision and deny the divorce sought by Mrs. Hansley.

The court first ruled that testimony about anything Mr. Hansley said concerning Lucy's child was inadmissible unless there was also evidence about how he treated the child; otherwise, the comments may have been part of a secret plan by the Hansleys to get around North Carolina's tough requirements for getting a divorce.

More importantly, North Carolina's divorce statute permitted the granting of absolute divorces only when "either party has separated him or herself from the other and is living in adultery." However, Mrs. Hansley's petition did not allege that her husband continued his adulterous ways after she had left him. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that no evidence about any adultery by Mr. Hansley after his wife moved out was admissible. As indicated by the court, the requirement that the offending party still live in adultery was to make sure no divorce was given until reconciliation was beyond all hope. As stated in Judge Ruffin's decision:

… the law does not mean to dissolve the bonds of matrimony and exclude one of the parties from marriage until there is no just ground to hope for a reconciliation …

… even when there is a separation, if the offending party should reform forthwith and lead a pure life afterwards, the law does not look upon it as hopeless, that reconciliation may in time follow the reformation. It may not be a case, indeed, in which the law will permit the husband to insist on a restoration of the conjugal rights of society and cohabitation, by compelling the wife's return. But, on the other hand, it is not a case in which it is past hope, that the wife may not, upon the strength of ancient affections, and a sense of duty and interest, be willing of herself, at some time, to partake of the society and share in the fate of her reformed husband.

Therefore, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that even though there were sufficient grounds to give Mrs. Hansley a legal separation or a divorce a mensa et thoro, no absolute divorce could be granted. The superior court's ruling was overturned and the divorce was denied.