Belt v. Belt

• Decision Date: 06 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 15478.,15478.
• Citation: 288 S.W. 100
• Parties: BELT v. BELT et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

288 S.W. 100

BELT v. BELT et al.

No. 15478.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 6, 1926.

Rehearing Denied July 22, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County; Ralph Hughes, Judge.

Action by Mary Elizabeth Belt against Alex T. Belt, Dora Belt, and Eldred Houston, subsequently dismissed as to defendant last named. From a judgment for plaintiff, the remaining defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lawson & Hale, of Liberty, and Sam Withers and S. J. & G. C. Jones, all of Carrollton, for appellants.

John T. Morris, of Carrollton, and Guy Whiteman, of Norborne, for respondent.

ARNOLD, J.

This is an action in damages for alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband. The parties reside at Norborne, Carroll county, Mo., and defendants Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt are the parents of plaintiff's husband, James C. Belt. The petition charges that the defendants —

"wrongfully, wantonly, wickedly, and maliciously, and intending to injure plaintiff and deprive her of the aid, comfort, support, society, assistance, and affections of the said James C. Belt, her husband as aforesaid, for a long period of time prior to the 28th day of January, 1924, conspired, confederated, and co-operated together, wrongfully, wantonly, wickedly, and maliciously, to alienate from plaintiff her said husband, James C. Belt, and did, by conspiring, confederating, and co-operating together against the plaintiff, wrongfully, wantonly, wickedly, and maliciously persuade and induce the said James C. Belt, plaintiff's husband, to lose his love and affection for plaintiff, and to separate from and abandon plaintiff, thereby alienating and destroying the love and affection of the said James C. Belt for plaintiff, and causing the said James C. Belt to separate from and abandon plaintiff, thereby breaking up and destroying the home of the plaintiff and the said James C. Belt, and thereby depriving plaintiff of the aid, comfort, society, companionship, assistance, and affections of her said husband, James C. Belt.

"Plaintiff says that, by reason of the premises, the said James C. Belt, husband of plaintiff as aforesaid, separated from, and abandoned, plaintiff, and that, by reason of said wrongful, wanton, wicked, and malicious acts and conduct of defendants as aforesaid, she has been deprived, and still is deprived, of the love, affection, aid, comfort, society, companionship, and assistance of her said husband, James C. Belt, and that she has been humiliated and disgraced by reason of defendants' said wrongful, wanton, wicked, and malicious acts and conduct aforesaid, and has suffered great anguish and distress of body and mind."

Actual and punitive damages are asked in the sum of $15,000 and $10,000 respectively.

The defendants Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt each filed separate answers making general denial. Eldred Houston who was also named as a defendant, filed separate answer, consisting of a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds: (1) That she is not, and was not on and before the date of the institution of this action, a resident of Carroll county, and (2) that service on her was in Jackson county, Mo., where she resides; and (3) "that Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt, the other defendants herein, are residents of Carroll county, Mo., but that neither of said defendants were or are necessary or proper parties herein, and are not bona fide defendants to or for the alleged cause of action, which is based on alleged conspiracy of defendants, for the reason that, if there is any liability on the part of defendants, which is denied, it would be a several liability, and not a joint liability; that said defendants, Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt, were improperly joined as defendants herein for the purpose of attempting to cony fer on this court jurisdiction of the person of this defendant and of the subject of this cause."

The reply was a general denial of the matters contained in the separate answers of the defendants. During the progress of the trial, plaintiff dismissed her suit as to defendant Eldred Houston, and the cause proceeded to judgment against the remaining defendants. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt in the sum. of 86,000 actual damages. Motions for a new trial and in arrest were unavailing, and defendants appeal.

The record shows that James 0. Belt is the son and only child of defendants Alex T. and Dora Belt, husband and wife; that plaintiff, whose maiden name was Mary Elizabeth Lii: ler, and James 0. Belt were married on November 6, 1915, and from that date, until January 28, 1924, they lived together as husband and wife; that on said last-named date there was a separation, plaintiff remaining in the house which had been occupied by herself and husband for some years immediately preceding the separation. During the first few months of their married life plaintiff and her husband lived at the home of Alex T. Belt and Dora Belt. Later, for some two or three years, they lived in rented houses, until they purchased a home of their own, where they lived until the final separation, and where plaintiff still resides.

The facts show that on Christmas Day, 1922, a family dinner was given at the home of Alex T. Belt, and that plaintiff and her husband, Mary Van Landingham, Catherine Cunningham, and her son, F. S. Cunningham, were guests. Mrs. Van Landingham and Mrs. Cunningham were sisters of defendant Dora Belt, and Mrs. Cunningham lived at Liberty, Mo. As soon as plaintiff and her husband arrived at the home of the elder Belts, James C. Belt was given intoxicating liquor; that the drinking was repeated until James C. Belt and his father became drunk; that, when seated at the table, Alex T. Belt, because of his intoxication, was unable to carve the turkey, and asked James C. to perform that function; but, being intoxicated, he was unable to carve the fowl satisfactorily; that the face of James C. Belt was flushed, and his remarks and condition were those of a man excessively drunk. Plaintiff was so grieved and shocked at the condition of her husband, brought about by the acts of his parents in giving him intoxicants, that she could not eat her dinner, but left the table, and repaired to the living room, where she remained until the meal was over, when her husband came into the room and reclined upon a couch; that plaintiff said to her husband, "O, Jim, how could you have forgotten yourself so?" and that he replied, "O, honey, I didn't mean to do it." Plaintiff then said to him, "I know they ought not to have given it to you." At this juncture defendant Dora Belt came into the room in a state of anger, and said to plaintiff: "What's the matter with you? Why did you leave the table? This is the way you always act." This was said in the presence of plaintiff's husband and defendant Alex T. Belt. Thereupon Mrs. Cunningham and Mrs. Van Landingham came into the room, and in their presence, and in the presence of James C. and his father, the defendant Dora Belt further said:

"Now, I am going to tell you how Mary Elizabeth always acts. She's a perfect devil, and I have kept in my heart the things that she has done. And now I am going to tell you. This is the way she always acts, and I know, and you know, there has nothing been done to make her act like this."

Dora Belt also said at that time that she had been in plaintiff's home (prior to her marriage to James C. Belt), and that plaintiff had a very poor home; that plaintiff had never been accustomed to anything in her home; and that what plaintiff now had she (Dora Belt) had given her; that Dora Belt then turned to plaintiff's husband and said, "You know how she quarrels all the time. This is the way she does." She said plaintiff had offended them terribly, and would not try to be one of them.

There was testimony in plaintiff's behalf, in this connection, tending to show that defendant Dora Belt felt, and so expressed herself, that her son in marrying plaintiff had married beneath his station; that plaintiff replied to this tirade by saying:

"No, Mrs. Belt, it isn't that at all. I don't want to hurt your feelings or do anything to offend you. It's just that I can't bear to have you give whisky and things to Jim, because I know you both like it, and I know Jim can't help liking it, and it just hurts me so. If this is the way you want to spend your holidays, I don't expect to ever come into your home again on a holiday, because I can't bear it, and I can't enter into it."

Further, it appears that Dora Belt said in the presence of the others that plaintiff was just of a high temper and quarrelsome nature, and nothing pleased her; that Jim was not drunk; and that they were not drunk, and had not been drinking. Plaintiff denied this, and said to her mother-in-law:

"You are trying to make trouble between Jim and I, and you have been doing it. * * * Are you trying to separate us? Is that what you are doing? "

Thereupon Dora Belt said:

"I don't care what you do; you can go if you want to."

It appears in plaintiff's account of the affair that at this juncture defendant Alex T. Belt, because of his intoxication, was hors de combat; that he began to cry, and was escorted to bed, where he became quieter and went to sleep. After Alex T. Belt had been thus disposed of, plaintiff said to her husband:

"Let's don't talk any more about it; I'm all alone. * * * Jim, I'm all alone in this, and let's don't have any more trouble about it," — and his reply was, "All right." Then Tim turned to his mother and said:

"Oh, mama, you have made a barrier between Mary Elizabeth and that will never be healed, and you have made a barrier between you and Mary that will never be healed. You oughtn't to have said things."

To this his mother replied:

"Well, Jim, she's acted that way; that is the way she spoils everything. We can't enjoy ourselves because of her. She won't do as we want her to do."

Later in the evening Alex T. Belt was taken for an automobile...