Cox v. Cox

• Decision Date: 24 October 1927
• Docket Number: 4690
• Citation: 260 P. 693,45 Idaho 49
• Parties: MAE COX, Respondent, v. SOLAN COX, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

260 P. 693

45 Idaho 49

MAE COX, Respondent, v. SOLAN COX, Appellant

No. 4690

Supreme Court of Idaho

October 24, 1927

DIVORCE-CONFLICTING EVIDENCE-FINDINGS NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL.

Findings for plaintiff in divorce for wilful neglect will not be disturbed on appeal, there being abundant substantial evidence, not documentary, to support them, notwithstanding conflicting evidence.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Dana E. Brinck, Judge.

Action for divorce. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment of the trial court affirmed, with costs to respondent.

J. P Pope, for Appellant.

Where wife deserts husband without good cause, the law does not require husband to support her. (Roby v. Roby, 10 Idaho 139, 77 P. 213, and cases cited.)

Where there is no substantial evidence in support of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the decision of the lower court will be reversed.

C. H Edwards, for Respondent, cites no authorities.

FEATHERSTONE Commissioner. Babcock and Adair, CC., concur.

OPINION

FEATHERSTONE, Commissioner.--

This is an action by the wife for divorce upon the ground of wilful neglect. Judgment was for the plaintiff, awarding her a decree of divorce, custody of the child, and $ 20 a month alimony for the support of the child. Defendant appeals.

The appellant assigns as error: That the evidence is not sufficient to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law, or judgment, in that the evidence shows that defendant supported plaintiff to the best of his ability before she deserted him; that the plaintiff deserted defendant without sufficient cause; that she admitted defendant had a cause of action for divorce for her desertion; that defendant was willing and offered to support plaintiff if she would live with him.

The plaintiff offered evidence to prove that defendant did not support the plaintiff to the best of his ability before she left him; that she did not leave him without cause, but for the reason that he was lazy and neglected to support plaintiff; and that plaintiff left him because she was forced to support herself and also support defendant a large portion of the time.

The record shows that appellant required the respondent to live for a long time in a tent during winter weather; that she worked for the railroad company cleaning cars, also worked in a restaurant, and the money she earned went to buy provisions for the defendant to live on, and for the rent of the home, while the defendant was doing nothing.

The record also shows that while they were living on a homestead on different occasions plaintiff was ill, and defendant did not get the necessary fuel for a fire, and she was forced to go to bed to keep warm; that on one occasion, while plaintiff was...