Anderson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 04 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 35711.,35711. |
| Citation | 197 Iowa 383,197 N.W. 300 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; Chas. A. Dewey, Judge.
Action for divorce. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.Maxwell A. O'Brien, of Des Moines, and McCoy & McCoy, of Oskaloosa, for appellant.
W. H. Keating, of Oskaloosa, for appellee.
This is an action for divorce on the ground of adultery. The principal facts are not in dispute, the controversy being as to the reasonable inference to be drawn from them.
[1] Both plaintiff and defendant had been married before, and each had grown children. The plaintiff, at the time of his marriage to defendant, on May 8, 1922, had for some years resided on a small tract of land, consisting of some 15 acres, lying near Oskaloosa, and was employed as fireman of a stationary engine, working at night. Prior to his marriage to defendant his daughter had lived with him. The defendant was a widow, and for some years before this marriage had been employed as housekeeper by D. S. BeDillion, who, the record shows, was a widower without children at home. The plaintiff at the time of the marriage was perfectly familiar with the defendant's situation and knew she was living at BeDillion's house as his housekeeper. Immediately after their marriage they went to live at plaintiff's home, and, save for the time required for a delayed wedding journey, continued to reside there until July 4, 1922, when defendant left and returned to BeDillion's house, claiming to have resumed her former postion as housekeeper for wages. On the following day the petition in this case was filed, alleging that defendant had been guilty of adultery with BeDillion.
Aside from the admitted fact that defendant, when she left plaintiff, went to BeDillion's, and has continued to reside there, with no other person living in the house, the record presents no evidence to sustain the charge of adultery. It is contended, however, that certain other circumstances are established by the evidence which, taken in connection with that fact, warrant the conclusion that their relations were adulterous. The plaintiff testified that on one occasion when BeDillion was at plaintiff's house the defendant said the reason she left BeDillion's was that he did not want to marry her, and that the latter replied: “I would now.” This conversation was denied by both defendant and BeDillion. Plaintiff's daughter testified that after her father had gone to work there were frequent telephone calls for the defendant in a man's voice, and that on one occasion she heard the defendant say, “Yes,” and that she had been busy during the day and would be in town on Saturday. Defendant and BeDillion both admitted having one telephone conversation, on Decoration Day, about flowers for the grave of defendant's mother, but denied any others. Plaintiff testified that when he would come home from work in the morning defendant would go to town every day; that at first she claimed to be going to the dentist, and later he did not ask her purpose. The defendant admitted making frequent trips to town, but testified she went to the dentist's, or to visit friends. There is no testimony that she met BeDillion on these occasions, and they both testified that they did not meet. It appears that as plaintiff went to his work Saturday nights defendant would accompany him to town, and return with him the following morning. How often this occurred, whether more than twice, is not clear. On one such occasion defendant spent the night with friends of herself and husband named Arnold, and on another, when Arnolds did not have room for her, went to a Mrs. Ferrell's. Arnold testified that, shortly after defendant left, BeDillion called by telephone to ask if she was there; that he followed her, and that as she passed BeDillion's house she stopped a minute; that the house was dark, and she went on and into the gate at Mrs. Ferrell's. BeDillion testified that he called for the defendant at Arnold's supposing she was there because she and her husband had been there before they were married, and that his purpose was to inquire about some pictures she had taken from his place, and which he had not missed at the time of his visit to plaintiff's home. If defendant spent more than two nights in town it is not shown where she stayed, unless at Arnolds', but it is not shown that she and BeDillion met on any of these occasions. Plaintiff accused defendant of “running around with BeDillion,” and testified that she said nothing in reply, while she testified that she denied the accusation. Both defendant and BeDillion as witnesses denied positively that they had been guilty of adultery, or that any improper relations had ever existed between them, or that they had met during the time plaintiff and defendant were living together, except, on the occasion referred to, at plaintiff's house and on the street in the presence of plaintiff. Concerning defendant's return to his house, they testified, in substance, that after she left plaintiff's home she inquired by telephone if she could leave some furniture and things at BeDillion's; that he replied she could, and said he wanted a “girl”; that she asked what he would pay her, and he said $5 per week, and that was the arrangement.
The defendant has no property or home of her own, and testified she had no place to go when she left plaintiff. BeDillion denied that he made any effort to induce defendant to leave her husband. She testified that she left him because of his dirty and filthy personal habits, his abusive language, his failure to provide for her properly, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial