Anderson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 22 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 32909 |
| Citation | 174 N.W. 665,189 Iowa 95 |
| Parties | CARRIE B. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. AXEL R. ANDERSON, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED MAY 22, 1920.
Appeal from Polk District Court.--JOSEPH E. MEYER, Judge.
ACTION for divorce. The ground alleged is cruelty. After a trial the court dismissed the petition. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Henry & Henry, for appellant.
E. J Frisk and J. L. Gillespie, for appellee.
1. The parties were married December 1, 1901. She was past 49 years of age, and he was about the same age. She had been married three times, and secured a divorce from each of her husbands. She told defendant of two of her marriages. She had a son by a former marriage, who was about 18 years of age, at the time these parties were married. She was a woman of average intelligence. He was a bricklayer, a steady, hard-working man, but could not read or write, and had little, if any, education, and had had but little business experience. He, turned over his wages to her, until she returned from California, in the spring of 1918. Defendant then told plaintiff that she had managed the business for 8 1/2 years, and that thereafter he would manage it himself. They at first lived in Des Moines, but later exchanged the town property for acreage, just outside the city limits, where they built a new brick house, defendant doing the brick work. Plaintiff had some money of her own, which went into the new property. She had, before this, purchased a considerable amount of household goods, which, she testifies, she paid for. The deed to the new property was taken in the name of both of them, or of the survivor of the other. Plaintiff testifies that this was the arrangement, and it seems not to be seriously disputed by the defendant. He says he saw the deed, but doesn't remember whether he heard it read or not. They seem to have gotten along fairly well until about December, 1917, at which time plaintiff claims defendant's treatment of her changed. The doctor testifies that he first treated plaintiff two or three years before that, and that, at that time, she was extremely nervous, had some temperature, from which he suspected she might have tuberculosis (but, at the time of the trial, he was of opinion that she did not have that); that she was broken down in health, and he advised her to go to California through the cold weather. She went to California on December 13th. About February 21, 1918, defendant caused her to be notified to return home at once, and that she would receive all the medical attention that she required. Upon receipt of this letter, she wired for ticket and traveling expenses, and received a wire back that ticket would be furnished at the depot, and $ 5.00 in money. She then had $ 50, which she had borrowed from her son, who then had a family. On her arrival home, she went to bed, and, a week afterwards, it was decided that she must go to the hospital for an operation. She testified that he swore and cursed her, in connection with the operation, and said:
She says that, the night before she went to the hospital, she invited her son and his wife to supper. The daughter prepared the supper. Defendant came in, and found the daughter getting the supper. He got his own supper, and ate it in the kitchen. While she was at the table, he came to the door, and said:
"God damn you, you said you were sick; but, by God, you are able to go to the table and eat like a hog."
This circumstance is testified to by plaintiff and her son and his wife. It is denied by the defendant. She went to the hospital that night, and was operated on the next morning, and was on the operating table 2 1/4 hours. She testifies that she asked defendant to go to the hospital with her, but that he refused to do so. He testifies that the reason he did not go, was because he couldn't stand it to be present; and there is other testimony that, when she started to go, he assisted her into the conveyance, and that he cried and told the doctor to take good care of her. The next Sunday after the operation, which occurred on Friday, he went to her room in the hospital. She testifies that he was so angry he was white, and raised his arms and hands like a crazy man, and cursed her soul to hell, and said everything abusive that he could say, because she had everything cut out of her; that he said she wasn't a woman, and he wasn't going to live with her; that he cursed and swore at her, because she couldn't have children; that, prior to that, he had always objected to children; that he stayed in the room about an hour and a half, but showed no affection of any kind. He testifies that he took her flowers to the hospital three times. The first time, he gave them to the nurse, and thought his wife did not know him. He went to the hospital again, the next Tuesday night after his work, and brought a note for $ 230 from the bank for her to sign. She says it was a renewal note, but he claims it was to pay some of the bills that she had made. She told him she could not sign it, because he had refused to give her any money since she got home, and that he had said he never would, and there would be no use for her to sign it. She testifies that he swore and cursed, and tried to make her sign it, and she said she could not lift her hand, she was so weak and sick. The next Thursday night, he went again, and she testifies that he cursed and swore, and that she finally signed the note. She testifies that, at this time, there was no sign of affection, or at either visit, and that he wanted to know, with an oath, how long she was going to lie there, and that he said:
He denies that there was any friction or cursing, and says that he kissed her, and inquired how she was getting along. She was in the hospital a little over two weeks. When she returned home, she was not able to move her feet on the floor, or lift them. When she stood up, two persons had to hold her, and a third move her feet. She was in bed two weeks, after she got home, and then began sitting up a little. After she had been home about a month, her son telephoned her to take a ride, and defendant objected to it. He admits that he objected, but puts it on the ground that it was too cold for her to ride, as she had been in bed. Plaintiff testifies that defendant always objected to her son, and referred to him as "that God damn kid." This he denies. The next morning after plaintiff took the ride with her son, there was trouble between the parties, with reference to a woman who had been helping plaintiff do the housework. Plaintiff testifies that, after that, defendant swore at her and cursed her continuously. She says:
She testifies that the cursing continued, and that, about June she could not stand it there, was sick and nervous and weak, and nobody to do the work; so she went to her son's, and has been there ever since. Thereafter, this suit was brought, August 6, 1918. She says that, the last twelve nights she was at home, defendant stood over the foot of her bed, and cursed and waved his arms until she was afraid of him, and she told him that, if he did not stop, she would leave. A neighbor woman testifies that she helped plaintiff when plaintiff had typhoid; that there was no nurse. On cross-examination, she says she never heard defendant abuse his wife, but that he was hardly ever there when witness was. As said, plaintiff is corroborated by her son and his wife, as to defendant's abuse. On the other hand, a young girl 14 years of age, testifying for defendant, says that she lived in the Anderson home three months, and that, at that time, plaintiff's health was not poor, that she knows of; that she was up and around, doing the housework, or helping; that she never heard defendant use any vile or profane language towards plaintiff, or mistreat her; but, as we understand the record, this was in September, 1917, before the alleged change in defendant's conduct. Two or three neighbors, testifying for defendant, say that they never heard defendant abuse her; but one of these testifies that he never was there when plaintiff and defendant were both present. Some of these were there more frequently. Plaintiff says that defendant did not abuse her as much in the presence of neighbors and others. One of defendant's witnesses testifies that, while he never heard defendant curse his wife, defendant sometimes used blasphemous language in talking with witness. Another witness testified that defendant used profane language in conversation, but thinks it was more of a habit than anything else. Defendant denies much of plaintiff's testimony, and denies...
To continue reading
Request your trial