Coggburn v. Coggburn, 7173
| Decision Date | 03 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 7173,7173 |
| Citation | 256 S.W.2d 836 |
| Parties | COGGBURN v. COGGBURN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
H. F. Owen, Jr., Branson, for appellant.
Gideon & Mahnkey, Forsyth, for respondent.
Action for divorce. Answer and cross-bill filed. Upon a trial, defendant was granted a divorce upon her cross-bill and plaintiff's petition dismissed. Alimony in gross in the sum of $6,980 allowed defendant with custody of a minor female child, sixteen years of age. Plaintiff has appealed.
The petition alleges the marriage as of March 25, 1933, the separation as of February 11, 1952. That two children, James Ray Coggburn, age 18, and June Katherine, age 15, were born of the marriage, custody of whom plaintiff asks. Plaintiff seeks divorce on the ground of indignities, which consisted of defendant having an ungovernable temper, constantly nagging about wanting to work out away from the home, that she was never satisfied with life on the farm; that she cursed and bemeaned plaintiff's parents and falsely accused him of running to them with his troubles and with them interfering in the private life of plaintiff and defendant. That defendant had on numerous occasions left the plaintiff without any knowledge on the part of plaintiff of her intention to leave or where she was going and that he had always prevailed upon her to return; that she had told him many times she was going to leave him and never live with him again and that she wanted to see him left alone in the world when she took the children away with her. That she told him she wanted a divorce and would not live with him any more; that on February 11, 1952, while plaintiff was away at work, she again left plaintiff, taking with her $5,400 in cash, that he had saved, and some of the household goods and furnishings, which compelled him to borrow money to carry on his business; that she placed the money in a bank on time deposit. He asked for a divorce, that care and custody of the children be awarded him and that she be required to return the money to him.
The answer admitted the marriage and separation and denied all else. It further alleged that plaintiff was a miser, that he hid his money out on the farm to keep from paying taxes, 'where he could handle it and love it' and that she, by accident, discovered the sum of $5,400 hidden in the barn; that to safeguard the money from being lost or stolen, she took it to the bank and deposited it, where it would be safe and protected. She admitted the names and ages of the children born of the marriage. In her cross-bill she asked that a divorce be granted her because of certain indignities which consisted of (2) knocking her down with his fists on several occasions and pulling her hair, (b) refusing to buy a radio, and when she bought one, wouldn't let her and the children listen to programs he didn't like and would scream and shout to keep them from hearing it, (c) being so stingy he would not wire the house for electricity, (d) would not have a telephone installed in the house and would not pay for one she had installed and (e) with having a violent temper and being mean, abusive and grouchy and not speaking to her for days.
She alleges that before their first child was born, plaintiff took her to a doctor to have an abortion performed. That he would never take her to a picture show but insisted on her going to Allendale 'where he could wine, dance and spend his money there.' That he well knew she did not want to go to Allendale on account of the bad reputation of the place.
Plaintiff's evidence showed that he and defendant were married on the 25th of March, 1933, and lived together most of the time until the 11th day of February, 1952. That during this time defendant was continually wanting to get a job and work elsewhere than at her home. That on the 11th day of February, he had gone to his father's to work on a fence and did work ther all day; that when he returned home, he found the defendant had left him, had taken part of the household goods and all of his $5,400 that he had in a glass jar hidden in a barrel of feed at the barn; that this was not the first time she had left him. At one time she had gone to California, another time to Michigan and the third time to Springfield. On each of these occasions, he had prevailed upon her to return. He had saved $5,400 which he began saving in 1942. He was saving it to build a house and provide another and better place for him and his family. They lived on 80 acres of land in a log house about seven or eight miles from Branson, for which he had paid $210 at a tax sale, before they were married. He and his wife had looked at several pieces of land with the intention of buying and building a house thereon with the money he had saved but she was never satisfied with any location. At the time of the marriage, he told her he knew nothing about making a living except by farming and they would live on a farm, to which she agreed.
After his wife had taken the money, moved to town and secured a position working in Skaggs Hospital, their son told plaintiff he could get part of the money back. The boy did go and talk to his mother and got $400 which was returned to plaintiff. In the meantime, plaintiff had some stock that had to be fed and he had no money to buy enough feed, so he was compelled to borrow $1,400 at the bank and pay 6% or 8% interest in order to finish feeding the stock.
He further testified that he had a pickup truck that he had purchased in 1950, for $1,489.52, but no value was proven as of the time of the trial. It was paid for from February, 1950 to April 1952. Neither was any value placed upon the farm except that he had given $210 for it at a tax sale before they were married, but most of it was rough land, with probably 15 or 20 acres in cultivation, and about 15 acres thereof very rough. The log house on it was of very little value. Since 1945, with his farming, he had spent some of his time working as a carpenter, he had learned the carpenter trade and could do the work himself in building a house. He had $3,000 loaned out on interest and had an interest in some stock of the approximate value of $2,500. They had lived on the farm for more than 14 years in the log house and that his reason for not having it wired for electricity was, they were intending to get a new place and he did not want to go to any additional expense on the old house. In his opinion they did not need a telephone and for that reason did not have one installed; that they had had two radios, one given to them but which was too expensive to keep up because of the cost of charging the battery, and the second one his wife had purchased. About two or three months before she left him, he had told his daughter about where his money was located, so if anything happened to him it would belong to his wife and children in equal shares. He admitted that he had lived economically so he could save money and buy a home for all of them. The reason he kept the money hidden in the barn was his fear that if he put it in the bank in their joint names, that some day when she got angry, she would leave and take the money with her.
He admitted slapping...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stauffer v. Stauffer
...v. Wells, Mo.App., 117 S.W.2d 700; Schwer v. Schwer, Mo.App., 50 S.W.2d 684.9 Stokes v. Stokes, Mo.App., 222 S.W.2d 108; Coggburn v. Coggburn, Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 836.10 Shapiro v. Shapiro, Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 886.11 Smith v. Smith, Mo.App., 300 S.W.2d 275; Woodman v. Woodman, Mo.App., 281 ......
-
Landreth v. Landreth
...has the duty of making its own findings of facts and conclusions of law. Jourdan v. Jourdan, Mo.App., 251 S.W.2d 380; Coggburn v. Coggburn, Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 836; Shilkett v. Shilkett, supra. In an action in which there is no definite or legal measure of recovery, which is especially true......
-
Shilkett v. Shilkett
...event, it is our duty, upon this review de novo, to determine the right and justice of the matters in controversy. Coggburn v. Coggburn, Mo.App., 256 S.W.2d 836, 839(2); Jourdan v. Jourdan, supra, 251 S.W.2d loc. cit. 382(1); Bowzer v. Bowzer, 236 Mo.App. 514, 155 S.W.2d 530, 532(2). Reluct......
-
Forrest v. Forrest, KCD
...view the witnesses, Robbins v. Robbins, 257 S.W.2d 92 (Mo.App.1953); Irvin v. Irvin, 357 S.W.2d 254 (Mo.App.1962); and Coggburn v. Coggburn, 256 S.W.2d 836 (Mo.App.1963). No clear preponderance of evidence contrary to the judgment of the trial court appears which manifests an abuse of discr......