Ennis v. Ennis

• Decision Date: 13 October 1894
• Citation: Ennis v. Ennis, 92 Iowa 107, 60 N.W. 228 (Iowa 1894)
• Parties: CHARLES H. ENNIS v. MAGGIE ENNIS, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

60 N.W. 228

92 Iowa 107

CHARLES H. ENNIS v. MAGGIE ENNIS, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 13, 1894

Appeal from Taylor District Court.--HON. H. M. TOWNER, Judge.

ACTION for a divorce. There was a hearing on the merits, and a decree for a divorce, as demanded. The defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Charles Thomas for appellant.

Jackson & Miller for appellee.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

The parties to this action were married to each other on the eighth day of April, 1890. The petition of plaintiff asks a divorce, on the grounds of desertion and inhuman treatment. The answer denies the grounds of desertion alleged, and asks for temporary alimony. The decree of the district court gave to the plaintiff an absolute divorce, and to the defendant the custody of their child, a son, then eighteen months of age, an allowance of one hundred and fifty dollars as alimony, and the costs of suit. At the time of the marriage in question, the plaintiff was about forty-four years of age. He had been married, and was the father of three young children. The defendant was about thirty-four years of age and had been married, but appears to have been childless. Her first marriage occurred ten years before, and she lived with her first husband ten days. She had been engaged to be married on two different occasions, on each of which the day for the marriage had been set; but both engagements had been broken. Whether she was guilty of any censurable conduct in any of those transactions does not appear. When she became engaged to plaintiff, she was living with her brother, about a mile and a half from Clearfield, and he was doing business in that place. Before their engagement occurred, the defendant had known one Lee Ellerick, an unmarried business man of Clearfield, and had been visited by him; but he had never declared any affection for her, did not visit her as a suitor, and said he "didn't want to marry anybody." For more than a year before her marriage to the plaintiff, she had not been on speaking terms with Ellerick, and entertained a bitter feeling toward him, on account of an injury which she supposed he had done her; but during that time the plaintiff and Ellerick were personal friends, and their relations were unusually cordial and intimate. She and the plaintiff had talked together about Ellerick, and the plaintiff had told her that she loved Ellerick, or she would not allow his conduct to worry her and that, if she loved him most, she should marry him. She denied the charge, and said she loved plaintiff more than she did Ellerick. A few days before the time appointed for the marriage, the plaintiff expressed to her a wish to invite Ellerick to the wedding. She consented that an invitation be given, but refused to join in it. After some reflection, she concluded that, as she was about to marry the plaintiff, it would be better to be on good terms with his friend; and entertaining the idea of securing an amicable adjustment of the differences between herself and Ellerick, and promoting a more friendly feeling between them, she called at his store on Saturday preceding the wedding, which occurred the next Tuesday. As several persons were present she asked if she could have an interview with him. He answered in the affirmative, and wished her to name a time. She suggested that evening, but he had an engagement for that time, and it was finally agreed that they should meet where she was then residing, at her brother's house, in the evening of the next day. He visited her at the appointed time, and during the conversation they then had he said, "Maggie, I would rather you would marry Charley than any one else, but you and I are the ones that ought to marry." She answered, "Lee, I thought you never wanted to marry me," to which he replied that he "did, but hesitated until it was too late." She then told him that if she had known that sooner, she would never have accepted the plaintiff.

At that time the plaintiff was in Bedford, to procure the marriage license. As a result of the interview, her bitter feeling for Ellerick was dissipated, and she became troubled to know what to do. It did not seem to her right to let the marriage be consummated without telling the plaintiff about her feelings toward Ellerick, and finally she decided to ask that the marriage be postponed one week. She desired that time in which to decide whether to marry the plaintiff, or to tell him that she could not marry him on account of her feelings for Ellerick, and sent a request to the plaintiff to visit her. In response to her message, he went to her on Monday. Their testimony does not agree in all respects in regard to what was then said, but we are satisfied that he was informed of her feelings for Ellerick, and that she desired that the marriage be postponed. The plaintiff expressed regret that he had not known her real feelings sooner, but said it was too late to cancel their engagement, and that it would be best not to postpone the marriage. After mutual expressions of sorrow and sympathy, it was arranged that the marriage should take place at the appointed hour, and that he should call for her at 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the next day, to take her to his home, where the ceremony was to be performed. Two hours before his arrival, she wrote a letter of considerable length to Ellerick, which was delivered to him, in which she gave a full account of her meeting with plaintiff on the preceding day, including the conversation and final arrangements, and expressed the hope that the marriage would yet be postponed one week. The closing part of the letter was as follows:

"Oh, how I long to be free, without causing him disappointment or suffering; I now feel I must go on. I will try to do my duty as a wife; but oh, the sadness What a blank my life will be I can't tell you how it hurts me to think of those bitter letters I wrote you, and the way I have treated you since. If I had treated you differently, affairs might now be different. Oh, Lee, it was cruel as the grave for you to tell me what you did so late. I do not blame you, but you see my position. It is so near the time, and his need is so great. I am still praying with whole soul that heaven may open up a way even yet by which I may honorably get off. Perhaps, Charley will see this differently, and release me before the hour comes yet. It is now 4 o'clock, and I must write no more. Good-by, Lee. I shall think of you often all through life. It can't be otherwise. You have my heart, and Charley my hand. MAGGIE.

"P. S. I don't know how or when I will have a chance to give you this, but I will take it with me.

"M. F."

At 6 o'clock the plaintiff arrived, and she returned with him to Clearfield. When she met him, he asked if she was feeling any better, and she told him that her feelings toward him were not changed; that "if anything, I felt more toward him because he suffered so." They talked about the marriage and the advisability of consummating it, and about the probability of a separation if they were married, until the hour appointed for the ceremony had passed. Finally, she told him, "if he was sure he knew what he was doing, and would rather we would go on, I would do so," and "Charley, it is like giving up my life." He insisted that she would love him if they were married, and the marriage took place. The assembled guests then partook of the wedding feast, while she retired to her room. After a time the plaintiff entered, sat down by her, and asked if she "loved him now;" and she answered promptly that she did not. She asked that his housekeeper stay with her that night, and he consented. The next morning she rendered the plaintiff some assistance preparatory to moving to another...