Baier v. Baier

• Decision Date: 24 December 1903
• Docket Number: 13,635 - (152)
• Citation: 97 N.W. 671,91 Minn. 165
• Parties: WILLIAM F. BAIER v. FLORENCE BAIER
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 N.W. 671

91 Minn. 165

WILLIAM F. BAIER v. FLORENCE BAIER

Nos. 13,635 - (152)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 24, 1903

Action in the district court for Hennepin county for an absolute divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant, answering, made countercharges of cruelty on the part of plaintiff, and prayed for an allowance for her separate support. The case was tried before Spooner, J sitting for the judge of the Fourth judicial district, who found in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Divorce.

In this, an action for divorce by the husband against his wife on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, it is held that the finding of the trial court to the effect that she was not guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, and that she was justified in leaving and remaining away from his home by reason of his cruel conduct towards her, is sustained by the evidence.

Attorney's Fee.

The trial court did not err in allowing the defendant attorney's fees and for her support pending the litigation.

Separate Action for Support.

A wife who is living apart from her husband for a cause legally justifying her may maintain, independent of an action for a divorce, an equitable action against him for her separate support.

F. J Leonard and Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht, for appellant.

Chas. R. Fowler and Chas. G. Hinds, for respondent.

OPINION

START, C.J.

On September 24, 1902, the plaintiff, a youth of twenty-three years, and the defendant, a maid eighteen years old, were married to each other. Some two months thereafter, and on December 4 of the same year, the defendant left the plaintiff, and returned to her father's house. The plaintiff fourteen days thereafter brought this action against her for an absolute divorce on the ground of her alleged cruel and inhuman treatment of him. The complaint alleges that the defendant threatened to leave the plaintiff, neglected to care for him when he was seriously ill; that she swore at him, and assaulted him with her fists and a chair, and threatened to kill him; that she was big and strong, but refused to cook, wash, and mend for him; that she was addicted to the habit of reading novels; that she was possessed of an ungovernable temper; that she has since her marriage to the plaintiff been lazy and untidy; and, further, that on December 4, 1902, when he was ill in bed, and unable to care for himself, she deserted him, leaving no one to care for him.

The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint as to cruel and inhuman treatment, and for further answer to the complaint and as a cross-bill the defendant alleged the marriage of the parties, their ages, and their place of residence, respectively; that the plaintiff was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of her, stating the acts and conduct of the plaintiff toward the defendant; and that on the day she left the plaintiff he struck her with his fist, swore at her, and ordered her to leave the house, and that she did so. She also alleged in her answer the amount and value of the plaintiff's property, and concluded as follows:

"Therefore defendant prays the judgment of this court for such support and allowance as is allowed her by law, and for such relief as to the court shall seem just and equitable."

The reply put in issue the allegations of the answer. The defendant also made a motion for a further allowance for attorney's fees and temporary support. The hearing of this motion was deferred by the trial court, with the consent of the parties until the testimony on the trial was closed.

After hearing the evidence, the trial judge made his findings of fact to the effect that the allegations of the complaint charging the defendant with cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff were untrue; and, further,

"That the conduct of the defendant in so leaving the home of the plaintiff and remaining away therefrom was induced by the unkind, improper, and cruel conduct of the plaintiff towards her, and in so leaving and remaining away from the home of the plaintiff the defendant was and is fully justified; * * * that the plaintiff is of sufficient ability to provide reasonable support for the defendant, and that under the facts and circumstances of this case he ought to do so."

As a conclusion of law the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, that defendant have judgment awarding her, until the further order of the court, $18 per month, to be paid to her by the plaintiff on the first day of each month; and, further, upon her application for attorney's fees and temporary support $100 be allowed her for attorney's fees and $49 for her expenses. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. The plaintiff assigns as error certain rulings of the trial court as to the admission of evidence. No exception was taken to any of the rulings on the trial, nor were any of them specified as errors on the motion for a new trial; therefore we cannot consider any of them. Olson v. Berg, 87 Minn. 277, 91 N.W. 1103.

2. It is urged that the court erred in finding, in effect, that the defendant was not guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff, but that she was justified in leaving his home on account of his cruel conduct, because such finding is not justified by the evidence. So far as the finding relates to the defendant's alleged cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff, it is unquestionably supported by the evidence. Most of the charges alleged in the complaint are of a character that would not justify a divorce, even if admitted, for they do not constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the legal meaning of the term. The evidence as to the charge that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff and threatened to kill him, and the charge that she deserted him when he was sick in bed, leaving no one to care for him, was conflicting, but it was ample to sustain the finding of the court as to the defendant's alleged misconduct.

Whether the finding that the defendant was justified in leaving and remaining away from the home of the plaintiff is sustained by the evidence is a more serious question. A wife is only justified in leaving her husband when she can no longer remain in his home consistent with her health or her personal safety or her self-respect. We are impressed by the evidence that neither of the parties had any appreciation of the duties and obligation imposed by the marriage relation, and that the defendant did not make out a very strong case of justification of her...