166 N.W. 457 (Iowa 1918), 31921, McNabb v. McNabb
|Citation:||166 N.W. 457, 182 Iowa 1143|
|Opinion Judge:||PRESTON, C. J.|
|Party Name:||MARY MCNABB, Appellant, v. HOOVER MCNABB, Appellee|
|Attorney:||Dan Davis, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESTON, C. J. LADD, GAYNOR, and STEVENS, JJ., concur. LADD, GAYNOR, and STEVENS, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||February 16, 1918|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Iowa|
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--K. E. WILLCOCKSON, Judge.
ACTION for divorce. Plaintiff's petition was dismissed on the merits, and she appeals.
In her petition, plaintiff asked for a divorce on three grounds: desertion; cruel and inhuman treatment; and
that defendant has become an habitual drunkard since the marriage.
[182 Iowa 1144] There was no appearance in the district court for defendant, either in person or by counsel, and a default was entered against him. The plaintiff's evidence was taken down by the reporter. Plaintiff was examined as a witness in her own behalf, as was her mother, and another witness. There was cross-examination by the court, but very little of the cross-examination is set out in the abstract. Under the circumstances, we have thought it proper to order a transcript of the evidence, in order that we may have the case as nearly as may be as it was presented to the trial court.
It appears that plaintiff had been married to another man, by whom she had five children. She has no children by the defendant. The first husband obtained a divorce from her, but the grounds are not shown in the abstract. Plaintiff had obtained a divorce from the defendant, but had remarried him. Plaintiff testifies to her husband's habits of intoxication, and there is some corroboration by other witnesses at this point; but it appears that defendant was an habitual drunkard before she married him the last time. She testifies that, before she married him the last time, he promised her he would take the cure for the liquor habit, and that he would not drink any more, but that he was not cured, and began his drinking habits again a few days after the last marriage. Under such circumstances, we think the requirements of the statute have not been met; that, to entitle her to a divorce on that ground, he must have become an habitual drunkard after the marriage.
Plaintiff testifies as to acts of cruelty which, if corroborated, would perhaps justify the court in granting a divorce. Some of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP