Doolittle v. Doolittle

• Decision Date: 28 October 1889
• Citation: 78 Iowa 691,43 N.W. 616
• Parties: DOOLITTLE v. DOOLITTLE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 Iowa 691

43 N.W. 616

DOOLITTLE

v.DOOLITTLE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 28, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Howard county; L. O. HATCH, Judge.

Action by plaintiff for divorce and alimony. Defendant denies the grounds for a divorce alleged by plaintiff, and by cross-petition demands a divorce from plaintiff, and asks that the title to a 40-acre tract of land be quieted in him. After a hearing on the merits, the district court rendered a decree in favor of plaintiff, divorcing her from defendant, confirming her title to all personal and real estate to which she holds the legal title, including the tract of land claimed by defendant, and requiring him to pay to her the sum of $3,500 as permanent alimony. The defendant appeals.W. K. Barker, for appellant.

H. T. Reed, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

Plaintiff was married to defendant on the 3d day of February, 1857, and lived with him as his wife until the spring of 1886, when she left him. At the time of their marriage, defendantowned a farm of 160 acres in Howard county, a small amount of personal property, and some money. Plaintiff also had about $125 in money. They at once moved onto the farm, and continued to reside thereon most of the time, and to make it their home, until plaintiff left defendant as aforesaid. Both were economical and industrious, and they succeeded in accumulating considerable property, the title to the most of which was taken in the name of the husband. Six children were born to them, all of whom have reached their majority. A few years after their marriage, the defendant caused to be conveyed to plaintiff 40 acres of his farm, to-wit, the N. E. 1/4 of the S. W. 1/4 of section 29, township 99, range 11, which is the tract now in dispute. Defendant claims that the conveyance was made as a precautionary measure to insure a living in case he should become financially embarrassed. In May, 1885, plaintiff was stricken with paralysis, and for a considerable time was confined to her bed, and is still suffering from that cause. Plaintiff seeks a divorce from defendant on the ground of inhuman treatment and demands alimony. Defendant asks a divorce from plaintiff on the ground of desertion, and that his title to the tract of land herein described be quieted.

1. The parties to this action appear to have lived together in harmony for a few years after their marriage, but, as time passed, troubles arose between them, and, for 15 years before their separation, quarrels were frequent, and they lived in a state of discord a large portion of the time. The children became involved, and were sometimes the occasion of the difficulties of the parents. The eldest, a son, appears to have taken the part of the father, while the others, one son and four daughters, espoused the cause of the mother. Plaintiff was not at all times without fault, but her conduct did not authorize or excuse that of defendant. He abused her frequently, and we think habitually, addressing her with profane and obscene language, applying to her opprobrious epithets, and on several occasions treating her with physical violence. On one occasion, in the presence of several of their children, he falsely accused her of improper relations with a farm hand. He denied her many of the necessaries of life, failed to provide her with proper clothing, and directed merchants to refuse her goods. He refused to pay the physician for the services he rendered to plaintiff during her sickness of 1885, until after this action was commenced. He misused the children in her presence. He was indifferent to her in her sickness, invited farm hands to sit in the room which she was occupying, with aggravating language and irritating manner. At length his conduct became unendurable, and plaintiff left him. In this we think she was justified. It is true that no single act of defendant was sufficient to endanger her life, and many of them together might not have had that effect; but there is an intimate relation between the conditions of the mind and body, and the life of the body may be threatened, and even destroyed, through influences brought to bear upon the mind. A long-continued course of ill treatment, even without physical violence, may be made as effectual, in many cases, to destroy life as any deadly weapon would be. If the treatment of plaintiff by defendant, considered as an entirety, is of a nature to affect her mind, undermine her health, and thereby endanger her life, it is sufficient to entitle her to the relief she demands. See Sackrider v. Sackrider, 60 Iowa, 397, 14 N. W. Rep. 736;Cole v. Cole, 23 Iowa, 435;Caruthers v. Caruthers, 13 Iowa, 266;Beebe v. Beebe, 10...