Dondelinger v. Dondelinger

• Decision Date: 09 June 1917
• Docket Number: 21,113
• Citation: 101 Kan. 179,165 P. 849
• Parties: GEORGE DONDELINGER, Appellee and Appellant, v. SARAH E. DONDELINGER, Appellant and Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

165 P. 849

101 Kan. 179

GEORGE DONDELINGER, Appellee and Appellant, v. SARAH E. DONDELINGER, Appellant and Appellee

No. 21,113

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 9, 1917

Decided January, 1917.

Appeal from Kingman district court; GEORGE L. HAY, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

DIVORCE REFUSED--Property Agreement Sustained by Evidence. The evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain the judgment denying a divorce to either party, and refusing to set aside a property agreement.

Carr W Taylor, of Hutchinson, H. E. Walter, and John H. Connaughton, both of Kingman, for the appellant.

J. Q. Jenkins, and Charles C. Calkin, both of Kingman, for the appellee.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

The action was one for a divorce on the ground of abandonment. The answer prayed for a divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty, and for cancellation of a contract relating to property rights. Relief was denied both parties, and both appeal.

On the plaintiff's side it is said that he was denied a divorce because he did not seek the defendant's return after her final departure. There were no special findings, and there was some evidence that the plaintiff was as much responsible for his wife's leaving as she was.

On the defendant's side it is said that a former attorney for the defendant was allowed to testify to privileged matter. A careful scrutiny of the transcript fails to disclose any improper testimony, and if improper testimony had been admitted, the presumption would be that the court disregarded it.

The defendant says the contract was not freely and fairly and understandingly entered into on her part. There was abundant evidence to the contrary. It is further said that the amount which the plaintiff contracted to pay the defendant was not sufficient. This is not a ground of error. The question is whether or not the judgment of the trial court is so manifestly unjust as to shock the conscience.

The parties were married in January, 1914. In July of the same year the defendant left the plaintiff and he agreed to pay her $ 1000 in installments. Some six weeks later she returned, and they lived turbulently together until January 6, 1915, when she again went away. Two hundred dollars had been paid on the previous contract, and it was in effect renewed for the remainder of the amount. One of the defendant's witnesses valued the plaintiff's property, consisting of real estate, by...