Superior Court of Pennsylvania, “Russell v. Russell, Appellant, 37 Pa. Super. 348”
“His course of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct towards her was one of continual arrogant domination, that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her condition intolerable. The indignities offered to her in treating her as a menial in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind, and that she was under the influence of designing and wicked persons fully warranted her withdrawal from his house, and justified her fear that he intended to further humiliate her by a threat to resort to legal proceedings to test her sanity.”
The appeal (No. 202, April Term 1908) was brought by Charles T. Russell from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Allegheny County (June Term 1903, No. 459), entered on a jury's verdict for Maria F. Russell. The Superior Court affirmed. The opinion also records that Russell said of his wife that “she is a woman of high intellectual qualities and of perfect moral character”, and quotes his own letter: “I conclude that I am adapted to no one, and that no one is adapted to me, except the Lord.”
Archived or alternative copy (opens in new tab)
Provenance and verification note for Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Russell v. Russell, Appellant, 37 Pa. Super. 348
Confidence note. The full official-reporter text was downloaded and read. The libel charged “indignities to the person”; the reporter’s syllabus is headed “Divorce — Cruel and barbarous treatment — Mental suffering — Evidence”, the head matter records the appeal as being “from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1903, No. 459, granting divorce in case of Maria F. Russell, by her next friend, Emma H. Russell, v. Charles T. Russell”, and the opinion speaks of evidence sufficient “to warrant them in finding the facts essential to a lawful dissolution of the marriage tie”. This report does not itself describe the decree as one from bed and board; that wording comes from the decree as quoted in the 1975 Yearbook. The opinion makes no mention of the “jellyfish” testimony or of any allegation of adultery. One OCR break in the reporter’s text (“fully warranted hex-withdrawal from his house”) has been repaired to “her withdrawal” in the quotation above.
Scan provenance. Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School Library) static edition of the official reporter, Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports vol. 37.
Corroborated by. src-ctr-yb-1975-p67-separation
Notes. The head matter records the argument date as 7 May 1908 and the judgment as “Affirmed”, and names the trial judge as MacFarlane, J. The 1975 Yearbook names the trial judge as “Justice Collier”; the discrepancy is unresolved and neither name should be published as settled.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-ctr-pasuper-1908-1019-russell-v-russell