Blair v. Blair

• Decision Date: 12 May 1908
• Citation: 131 Mo. App. 571,110 S.W. 652
• Parties: BLAIR v. BLAIR.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

110 S.W. 652

131 Mo. App. 571

BLAIR v. BLAIR.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 12, 1908.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1908.

1. DIVORCE — GROUNDS — INDIGNITIES.

That one subjected his wife to intolerable personal indignities by neglect, abusive language, and constant morose and quarrelsome conduct entitles her to a divorce.

2. SAME — ALIMONY — REASONABLENESS.

The reasonableness of an alimony allowance is to be determined primarily by the amount of the husband's property and earning capacity, and by reference to the wife's separate means, and particularly that portion thereof given to her by him.

3. SAME.

On granting a wife a divorce, the court properly required the husband to pay $15 a month for the support of their two minor children, but should have allowed her $1,000 alimony in gross instead of $2,200, where she owned land acquired by him at a cost of at least $7,000, in addition to some personalty, his property was worth $5,760, he was 58 years old, broken in health, unable to practice his profession, and having a very small income, and the children had some independent means.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Divorce suit by Annie E. Blair against Joseph H. Blair. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

J. H. Blair and Tapley & Fitzgerrell, for appellant. J. D. Hostetter, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This is a divorce suit. The parties were married September 11, 1873, in Kentucky, moved to Bowling Green, Mo., in 1877, and have resided there ever since. At the time of the trial in 1906 plaintiff was 53 years old and defendant 56. They have seven children, whose names and ages at said time were as follows: Garnett, 31 years old; Maude, 28; Martha, 26; Frank, 24; Annie, 20; Joseph, 18; and Mary, 14. The first separation plaintiff says was in September, 1901, and continued until Christmas, 1903, when, because of her sympathy for defendant, who was ill, she resumed conjugal relations with him. During that interval the parties lived in the same house, but plaintiff occupied a room with her daughter Maude, and defendant says he did not understand they were separated, but that his wife was taking care of Maude, who was sick. A separation occurred January, 1904, a short time after what plaintiff calls a reconciliation, and since then they have lived apart, though in the same house. On October 27, 1905, plaintiff, in whose name the title to the property stands, had the sheriff serve a written notice on defendant, forbidding him to use or occupy any part of the house as a residence, or to sleep or take his meals there. The house had been built by defendant, who swore he put $3,500 to $4,000 into it, and he refused to vacate. The testimony covers 10 years of the married life of the parties, and is so extensive that no epitome of it is likely to convey an accurate impression of the real characters of the members of the household, including the children, who play a large part in the case, the feelings and behaviour of all concerned at different times, the comparative blame of each person for the frequent altercations which occurred, and the final estrangement of plaintiff and the children from defendant. The obstacle to a correct understanding of cases like this is that the disputes and quarrels of years are condensed into a narrative which may be read in a few hours, thereby throwing the tenor of the family life as a whole into a false perspective. These parties had no trouble for 24 years, but lived contentedly together until about 1897. Plaintiff testified that prior to said date her husband had given her no cause of complaint, and had provided well for the family; as indeed, in our judgment, he continued to do, for he furnished a good house, reared his children in comfort, and edued them well. He is a lawyer, and has practiced his profession for many years in Bowling Green. He also holds two-thirds of the stock of a corporation which owns a set of books containing abstracts of the titles to lands in Pike county and conducts an abstract business. About the year 1905 a young woman, whose name we forebear to mention, acquired part of the remainder of the capital stock of the abstract company, and afterwards assisted in managing the business, thereby being placed in the same office rooms with defendant. His son Garnett, who had been graduated from the law school of the State University in 1895, was taken into partnership with his father in the practice of the law, defendant furnishing a library, and defraying the office and other expenses of the business. They continued in partnership for 9 years, or until 1904, and during said period Garnett occupied the same rooms his father and the young lady occupied. In 1897 plaintiff conceived the notion defendant was too attentive to the young woman, and that his interest in her had excited comment in the community and caused him to grow cold and indifferent toward plaintiff. The children shared this opinion, which we are convinced was the main cause of the estrangement that grew up between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant's health, which never had been good, became greatly impaired in 1905, affecting his nerves, making him morose and irritable, and leading him to use intoxicants, a habit which grew on him and became excessive. These things contributed toward causing the relations between him and his family to become strained and contentious. Whisky was prescribed for him by his physician, but the evidence inclines to prove he drank more than was necessary, and was often intoxicated on Saturday nights and Sundays, though it is due to him to say at this point he attended steadily to business, not missing a day from his office, and many of his townsmen said they never had seen him under the influence of liquor. His irritability from illness and excessive drinking and the resentment of his wife and children at his supposed interest in the young woman led to frequent quarrels, sometimes of a violent character, between him on one side and his wife and the five adult children on the other, culminating finally in complete aversion on the part of his wife. As to this matter the trial court found that after the young lady in question entered the abstract business defendant grew cool toward plaintiff, neglectful of her and the children, cross and disagreeable, and that this disposition increased; that he made remarks to plaintiff and the children which were disparaging to them in comparison with the young woman, took the side of the latter in a dispute which arose between her and defendant's...