Bassett v. Bassett

Citation280 S.W. 430
Decision Date04 February 1926
Docket Number25043
PartiesBASSETT v. BASSETT
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

J. H Whitecotton, of Paris, for appellant.

W. W Barnes, of Paris, for respondent.

In Banc.

OPINION

SEDDON, C.

Action for divorce, which resulted in a finding and decree nisi for plaintiff. Defendant appealed to St. Louis Court of Appeals where the decree nisi was affirmed by a divided court. One of the judges of that court, deeming the opinion of the majority to be contrary to the decision of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Revercomb v. Revercomb, 222 S.W. 899, in his dissenting opinion filed, asked that the cause be certified and transferred to this court for final determination under the mandate of article 6, § 6, of the Amendment of 1884 to our state Constitution, which was done by order of record in that court.

Plaintiff's petition is based solely upon the statutory ground that defendant has offered him such indignities as render his condition intolerable. The petition charges:

'That the defendant, wholly disregarding her duties as the wife of plaintiff, offered plaintiff such indignities as to render his condition intolerable and unendurable in this, to wit:

'That defendant is plaintiff's senior by several years and a woman of exceptional mentality, neat in her appearance and careful in her housework, but is possessed of an autocratic disposition, and soon after the marriage aforesaid defendant began to assume direction of plaintiff's business and social affairs, and at all times complained of every act, whether of a business or social nature, on the part of plaintiff unless done under or by her direction; that at divers times when plaintiff was delayed from his meals on account of business or other unavoidable reasons the defendant invariably charged him with such conduct as to accuse him of infidelity, and further charged him with flirting with other women -- all of which defendant knew was untrue and was without provocation. Plaintiff further states that the defendant demanded the right to rule, and was continuously nagging and taunting plaintiff unless she was consulted in his every act, and that this spirit grew on the defendant with the passing of years.

'Plaintiff further states that most of the married life of plaintiff and defendant has been spent in Madison, Mo., where plaintiff's aged parents lived, and that defendant's treatment of his said parents was such as to make it impossible for them to visit in his home, and she objected to his attention to them and refused plaintiff's request to visit them with him; and plaintiff further states that on frequent occasions he offered to take defendant riding, and she would refuse to go if accompanied by his parents, from a paltry motive, which arose either out of vanity or dislike for them; that during the year 1919 plaintiff's father was in very poor health, and in the month of October of said year died; and while on his deathbed plaintiff asked defendant to visit his said father, and she refused to do so, and even objected to his going so often to look after and care for his said father, and saying that others could look after him. Defendant's attitude toward his father and mother was such as to greatly humiliate him beyond measure and was a species of mental cruelty.

'Plaintiff further states that defendant was greatly enraged at plaintiff and abused both plaintiff and his father on account of a sale of real estate made by his father in which he had no part or over which he had no control, and defendant insisted that plaintiff's father should have given the farm to plaintiff.

'Plaintiff further states that defendant was at all times during their married life jealous of him and demanded his undivided attention; that she was not congenial or compatible with his friends and relatives, and was averse to everything which tended to bring a sunny mood or affable situation to plaintiff; defendant's jealousy was not confined to any particular woman, but was directed rather toward women in general. Defendant, too, was opposed to plaintiff associating with men of his age, but, rather, insisted on his selecting men much older as his associates; plaintiff states that defendant's whole attitude during the greater part of the married life of plaintiff and defendant was more like that of an autocratic mother toward a wayward and disobedient son than a wife whose duty it was to treat her husband with kindness and affection.

'Plaintiff states that he did everything in his power to avoid the dissolution of the marriage vow, but that defendant's treatment of him as aforesaid was such as to render his condition in life intolerable and unendurable and greatly to his humiliation, and that said treatment was a species of mental cruelty.'

The answer admits the marriage, but denies each and every other allegation of the petition. The decree nisi contains special findings in favor of plaintiff, following the allegations of the petition quite closely.

This being a divorce action, we deem it our duty on appeal to state fairly and fully the facts as gathered from the record. The parties were married at Oklahoma City, Okl., on October 13, 1906, and lived together as husband and wife until October 28, 1919, a period of 13 years. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff husband was 27 years of age and his wife was 41 years of age, she being about 141/2 years older than her husband. Both parties were reared in Monroe county, Mo., and come from good family stock. Defendant had been a school-teacher, and at the time of her marriage and afterwards was the editor and part owner of a weekly newspaper at Madison, Monroe county, which paper had evidently been owned by her father before his death. The parties had known each other, we infer, for many years, perhaps all their lives, for the husband testified that he had known his wife 25 years before the marriage, and knew that she was older than himself. He had courted her 'for a year or so, might have been three or four years,' before they were married. The husband had prepared himself for the profession of dentistry, which profession, however, he appears to have practiced for only about a year, thereafter farming or working upon his father's farm near or adjacent to the town limits of Madison. The couple remained in Oklahoma only about two weeks after the marriage, returning to their home town, Madison, where they have continuously resided. Upon their return to Madison they went to housekeeping, and lived in a rented house from November, 1906, to April, 1907, when they went to the home of the husband's parents to reside for perhaps two years or a little longer. Plaintiff's parents deeded to the defendant wife a small tract of land of about an acre in one corner of their farm, situate about 2 or 3 blocks from the home of the husband's parents. The wife, having a certain amount of money of her own, built a house thereon with her own money, and in this house and upon said land the parties lived together as husband and wife until their separation in the latter part of October, 1919.

Plaintiff's father owned a farm of 40 acres immediately adjoining the home of the couple, which was platted into town lots and sold in September or October, 1918. In platting the land, it was purposed to lay out several streets, which would lie adjacent to the smaller tract on which plaintiff and defendant lived, and which would cause said tract to have streets or roads on all sides thereof, rendering the premises and home liable to dust and some discomfort therefrom. There is some testimony that defendant was much concerned at the resultant conditions arising from the sale and laying out of this 40 acre farm, and that she became somewhat 'out of humor' by reason thereof. Plaintiff claims that from that time defendant refused to speak to his father, even when the father was on his death bed a year later, and would not visit plaintiff's parents or enter their home. We will more fully discuss this phase of the testimony later.

Respecting the so-called indignities offered him by defendant, the plaintiff testified:

'During all our married life, I tried to treat the defendant with all respect due a wife. I tried to treat her with kindness and to make her a good living and tried to live like other people do, and did everything in my power to get along. Well, soon after we were married and came home, why of course she was considerable older than I was, and I suppose that she thought she knew a little more about business and things like that, and she began to try to take charge of my business transactions and social affairs; and of course, when I objected she would get very mad or curse and nag around about it; and I saw that I had made a mistake, and I knew that I was in to it and go ahead and make the best of it I could, so I endured those things. At times happen to be a little late coming to my meals, or something, it would be a big fuss. She accused me of being into things I should not be, and I should come in to my meals on time and she would -- men and boys that I had associated with for years, she objected to most of them. Some of them, not the right kind of men for me to run with, and boys that I was raised up with. Well; at times get off in one of them -- these big spells, -- she would threaten to do away with herself, or something like that, and of course that worried me considerably. I did not want anything like that; and I did not have very many liberties. I could not get out, very seldom that I could even go up town after supper a little bit. Like to get with the boys occasionally. It was not very pleasant. She would be mad when I came in, just be one thing after another, and maybe not speak to me. I very seldom got away from home.'

Relative to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT