Ellingson v. Ellingson

• Decision Date: 05 November 1948
• Docket Number: No. 34742.,34742.
• Citation: 34 N.W.2d 356,227 Minn. 149
• Parties: ELLINGSON v. ELLINGSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

34 N.W.2d 356

227 Minn. 149

ELLINGSON v. ELLINGSON.

No. 34742.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 5, 1948.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; William J. Archer, Judge.

Action by Hilma Ellingson against Henry Ellingson for divorce or separate maintenance. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Monson & Donoho, of Fergus Falls, for appellant.

Clarence H. Kleffman, of Hibbing, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court denying plaintiff a divorce from defendant or separate maintenance.

The parties were married on August 16, 1922. There are no living children. After moving around during the first six years of their married life, they settled in Hibbing, Minnesota, in 1928 and lived in that general area until January 1945. Defendant is a barber by trade, which occupation he followed during the years of their marriage, except for a couple of years before the parties separated, during which time he worked for a contractor and a railroad company. About January 1945, defendant left Hibbing for Minneapolis so that he could be treated at the University Hospital for a stomach ailment, and he has lived there ever since. He has been working at the barber trade since he came to Minneapolis.

This action, commenced in June 1946, was tried the following February. The complaint charged defendant with cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness, but the latter charge was abandoned on the oral argument before this court as not having been proved. The trial court found that defendant has not treated plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner and that he is not and has not been a habitual drunkard. Plaintiff was denied a divorce or separate maintenance, but was awarded judgment against defendant in the sum of $125, without costs or disbursements.

The only question for consideration here is whether the finding that defendant was not guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment of plaintiff is sustained by the evidence, as admittedly the habitual drunkenness charge was not proved.

1, 2. This court has held in many cases that on appeal the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and that the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed unless they are manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence. Hanson v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 279 N.W. 227; Kaehler v. Kaehler 219 Minn. 536, 18 N.W.2d 312, and cases cited. These rules are particularly applicable to the trial of a divorce case, where the ill feelings and bitterness between the contesting parties sometimes make it difficult to obtain dispassionate testimony upon which the trial court can base its adjudication. It has the opportunity to observe the parties and their witnesses, to question them, if necessary, and to try to ascertain the facts, and it has the means of estimating the true nature and degree of delinquency of the contestants. Webber v. Webber, 157 Minn. 422, 196 N.W. 646; Baker v. Baker, 224 Minn. 117, 28 N.W.2d 164.

A review of the testimony in a manner most favorable to defendant convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court with reference to the allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment and habitual drunkenness. We shall briefly consider only the former allegation.

It is evident from the record that the couple got along fairly well during the first 23 years of their married life, except for the natural trials and tribulations which arise in homes where financial conditions are hard. Defendant is a barber and apparently had difficulty at times, especially during the depression, in making both ends meet. During some of these times it appears that he used part of his income for liquor, which is to be condemned when it meant that his wife had to go without some of the necessities of life.

The real breach between the parties seems to have come to a head in January 1945, when defendant went to Minneapolis to work and to receive medical treatment. Plaintiff refused to accompany him. Among the reasons she gave for not going with him was that when he first went down there he had only one room in which to live. It is apparent, however, that when they lived in Minneapolis shortly after they were married it was under trying conditions, and the memories of this were not too pleasant, as she said that she would not go to Minneapolis to live under any circumstances. "I wouldn't go there to starve. * * * I have had enough of Minneapolis." In the allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment in her complaint she claimed that she had to eke out her own existence; that her husband was a spendthrift, careless in his financial affairs, and had no regard for her welfare; that he had contributed but $59 for her support between February 1946 and May 17, 1946; that he absented himself from his home evenings and that he sought the company of other women while away from home; and that the conduct of defendant made her nervous and ill, requiring medical treatment. She testified, however, that her husband had a rather gentle nature, had never beaten her, had never sworn at her, and had never ridiculed her in the presence of friends. There was...