Busenbark v. Busenbark

• Decision Date: 11 January 1911
• Parties: BUSENBARK v. BUSENBARK ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

150 Iowa 7

129 N.W. 332

BUSENBARK

v.BUSENBARK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 11, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Linn County; Milo P. Smith, Judge.

Action for damages for alienating affections. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence there was a directed verdict for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. H. Preston and Rickel & Dennis, for appellant.

Voris & Haas, for appellees.

EVANS, J.

The defendants are husband and wife, and are the parents of Merle Busenbark, who is the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband were married in Linn county on December 19, 1906. They were each about 21 years of age, and were without financial resources. Prior to the marriage the plaintiff taught school and made her home with her parents near Marion. Merle lived with his parents on a farm about nine miles from Marion. After the marriage, the young couple made their home for the winter with the defendants. In the meantime with the help of the defendants, a farm was rented about 11 miles distant, known as the “Woodward Place,” and they entered into occupancy of such farm about the last day of February. James Busenbark appears to have furnished the means with which to purchase the necessary personal property used on the place, including stock, and to have taken a bill of sale thereof from his son to himself. The young couple seem to have lived together in mutual affection until August or September, 1907. They finally separated about September 22, 1907. The only difference or controversy between the plaintiff and her husband which is made to appear from plaintiff's evidence was that he wanted to get a place for the succeeding year in the neighborhood of his parents. The evidence also tends to show that this was in accord with the wish of the parents, and that they offered assistance in the matter of getting such place. Several small places were discussed with a view to buying the same. The supposed advantage to the husband involved in such a plan seems to have been that he could thereby get the assistance of his parents in acquiring a place near by, and he could rent a part of the home farm and could have the use of his father's farm implements. The plaintiff objected to occupying any place near her husband's parents. Before the final separation, she did agree to “compromise” on one place known as the “Stringer Place,” “if he would agree to protect me from his parent's abuse, but he wouldn't do that.” This compromise was also conditioned upon the willingness of the defendants to purchase the Stringer place. Whether the defendants were willing or unwilling to do this does not appear from the record. The culmination of their differences was a separation a few days later. We avoid all discussion of the merits of the controversy between plaintiff and her husband, lest we throw something in the way of future reconciliation, or prejudge matters which may come up for judicial consideration later.

The claim in this case is that the affections of plaintiff's husband were alienated from her by the defendants in pursuance of a conspiracy on their part to that effect. It is averred that to carry out such conspiracy “they adopted a systematic scheme of finding fault at all the acts of the plaintiff” and that in this way, and by means “of promises and presents made to the said husband,” they completely destroyed her husband's love and affection for her. The record is barren of any evidence of a conspiracy. It is left to us therefore only to inquire whether there is sufficient evidence against either defendant to entitle the plaintiff to a submission of the case to the jury as against such defendant. The larger quantum of the evidence is directed against the mother-in-law, and we will give our first attention to that.

The first incident related occurred about a week after the young couple had gone into the home of the defendants. They did their washing one day, and the young husband offered “to hang the clothes upon the line.” When his mother saw him engaged in this work she “scolded” the plaintiff in this wise: “She said that I should be out helping him; that he never had hung up clothes before, and he didn't know how to do it, and he wouldn't get it done right, and that I should help him.” A couple of weeks later “it was wash day again” and was a very cold day. The usual facilities for washing in the family were that the washing machine was attached to an engine in the engine shed just outside the kitchen. The washing machine was used in this shed where there was no fire, and the heating of the water and the boiling of the clothes was done in the kitchen. On this particular day, the plaintiff's husband detached the washing machine from the engine and brought it into the kitchen and they did the washing in the kitchen, and “his mother scolded him because he did.” Then when his father came in his mother said, “Merle wouldn't mind me,” and his father said if he “couldn't do as his mother said, he should get out of there.” “She said that she didn't want it in the house, that it was warm enough; that she washed out there, and that it wouldn't hurt me; that it steamed up the house, and spoiled the furniture.” This language is the only interference complained of at this point. The washing was done in the house notwithstanding the objection.

The next incident complained of occurred on the last day of February when the plaintiff and her husband moved to the Woodward place. The wagons were being loaded up under the direction of the mother-in-law. She seems to have taken it for granted that the plaintiff would ride on one of the wagons to the Woodward place. The plaintiff did not feel able to do this, and the following colloquy occurred: “I asked her how I was to go and she said she didn't know; that I would have to go on one of the loads; that she didn't know how else.” “She said that if she was well enough she could drive one of the teams on a load herself. She said if I didn't do that my father would have to come after me.” “She wanted me to drive a team on a load when we moved, and I said it was too cold and too far. She said I might have my father come after me, and I did have him come.”

In the course of the spring and summer the defendants visited the plaintiff and her husband at the Woodward farm a few times. The conduct of the mother-in-law on these occasions, is set forth by the plaintiff in her testimony as follows: “Every time she came she found fault with the way I was doing my work or something that I was not taking care of, or that I shouldn't use a tablecloth every day. Said she ate off an oil cloth, and that I shouldn't use the silverware every day; that it would spoil it; and wanted to know if I had polished my silverware; and that she would meddle about making my butter, that I didn't know how to make butter; said that I wasn't letting my milk stand long enough to get all the cream.” This is amplified in her later testimony as follows: “From the time that we went there until the time that we moved she was always asking how much money I had, how much I had laid up, how much my parents had, and telling me I ought to have different articles, and that I should furnish them myself. She was speaking of buying me a tub to wash with. We told her she didn't need to do that, that I would go home and wash with my mother until I could get a washing machine of my own. She was complaining because they had to buy so many things for us to go to housekeeping with. She said, well her mother and her sister used a washboard, and it wouldn't hurt me to do that. I hadn't complained of anything of the kind, just told her that she needn't buy me one; that I could go home and wash with my mother until we got a machine. From time to time she would tell me I put too much sugar in; that that cost money, and that I would make it too rich; that it cost money; that cream would make things too rich; that cream was expensive and she couldn't afford it.” And again: “On that occasion after my husband and his father had gone out of doors, she picked up one of my knives and forks and says, ‘Did you polish your silverware?’ and I said, ‘No; I hadn't had time,’ and she said, ‘Well, didn't I give you some polish?’ I had taken a pan that she had given me, and she noticed that it had been put on the stove a time or two, and she said, ‘You oughtn't to do that unless you put an asbestos pad under it; you will spoil it.’ At that time I don't remember anything particular that the defendant James Busenbark said.”

The last incident complained of occurred at threshing time when the mother-in-law went to the Woodward place to assist the plaintiff in the cooking. The plaintiff testified: “I had my dinner planned before she came there and knew what I was going to have for dinner, and among other things I was going to have blackberries raw, and she said I should cook them; that it would take too much sugar to sweeten them; that it wouldn't take so much sugar if I cooked them. I was going to have cucumbers, and she didn't think the men would like them--she said Jim didn't like them; and I was going to have tapioca pudding, and she said I oughtn't to have that because her husband didn't like it. I asked her to cook the meat, but my sister had to cook it; she wouldn't cook it. She didn't think it would taste good...