Farley v. Farley, No. 26616.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Bennick |
| Citation | 181 S.W.2d 671 |
| Parties | FARLEY v. FARLEY. |
| Docket Number | No. 26616. |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1944 |
v.
FARLEY.
[181 S.W.2d 672]
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William S. Connor, Judge.
Suit by Lillian M. Farley against Louis A. Farley for separate maintenance. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
See, also, 181 S.W.2d 675.
A. U. Simmons and Edwin Rader, both of Clayton, for appellant.
E. McD. Stevens, of Clayton, and Charles A. Lich, of St. Louis, for respondent.
BENNICK, Commissioner.
This is a suit for separate maintenance, which was brought by the wife, Lillian M. Farley, against her husband, Louis A. Farley. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant; and plaintiff's appeal to this court has followed in the usual course.
The petition alleged that the parties were married on September 6, 1936, and thereafter lived together as husband and wife until August 24, 1942; that during all that time plaintiff had at all times faithfully demeaned herself, had discharged all her duties as defendant's wife, and had at all times treated him with kindness and affection; but that defendant, wholly disregarding his duties as plaintiff's husband, had abandoned her without good cause on August 24, 1942, and had ever since refused and neglected to maintain and provide for her.
The formal answer was a general denial of each and every allegation contained in the petition. As a matter of fact, however, there was no controversy about the marriage and the subsequent separation; and the actual defense, which defendant, over plaintiff's objection, was allowed to make under his general denial, was that plaintiff had been guilty of a number of specific indignities towards him which had constituted good cause for his abandonment of her.
Plaintiff, prior to her marriage to defendant, was a practicing lawyer in the State of Ohio, and at one time had been employed by the Ohio Industrial Commission, which is the board created for the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Law of that state. She had previously been married to one Harry Grau in the City of Cleveland, from which union there were born two daughters, Audrey and Jean, who were twenty-eight and twenty-six years of age respectively at the time of the trial in the court below. Due to an attack of infantile paralysis in childhood, Audrey, unfortunately, is mentally defective, and of later years has been confined in an institution in Columbus, Ohio, where she is maintained by funds left her by her father, who died in 1939, some years after he and plaintiff had been divorced. Jean had originally resided with her mother in Cleveland; but after the latter's marriage to defendant, she had been employed in
Chicago until September, 1940, when she came to St. Louis and permanently established herself with plaintiff and defendant in their home at 7177 Farley Avenue, in St. Louis County.
Defendant is employed as a salesman out of the local district office of the American Can Company, and on occasions is required to leave the city in connection with his business. In addition, the maintenance of friendly relations with his trade involves a certain amount of entertaining for customers of the company, which he does for the most part at country clubs, hotels, and the like, and for which the company allows him an expense account. Indeed, both he and plaintiff are socially inclined; and no little portion of their difficulty together is reflected in charges and countercharges respecting each other's conduct at the club in which they had their membership. Their trouble reached its climax on the night of July 22, 1942, when defendant returned to his home some time after midnight, after having spent the evening with a friend and customer down town. The evidence was in dispute as to whether plaintiff was the aggressor, or whether she acted in self-defense; but at any rate there was a physical encounter between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grapette Co. v. Grapette Bottling Co., No. 7383
...available to defendants since it was not pleaded in their answer. Section 509.090, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Consult Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671, 673-674(3, 5); Frank v. Myers, 232 Mo.App. 681, 109 S.W.2d 54, 57(3); Sevier v. Harmon, Mo.App., 261 S.W. 348(2); Tuepker v. Sovereign Ca......
-
Forbis v. Forbis, No. 7337
...basis for evidence of alleged misconduct by plaintiff offered in justification of defendant's action. Page 805 Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671, 674(5-7). However, over objections of plaintiff's counsel predicated not only on that principle but also on the well-established general ......
-
E v. G, Nos. 7702
...Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 80; Gregg v. Gregg, Mo.App., 272 S.W.2d 855; Zerega v. Zerega, Mo.App., 200 S.W. 700. 17 Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671(5). 18 See Downing v. Downing, Mo.App., 279 S.W.2d 538; see Adams v. Adams, 49 Mo.App. 19 See the comparison of living costs made in Burtrum......
-
Mary Potter Love, Inc. v. Medart, No. 27102.
...to prove it was improperly admitted. Brockman Commission Co. v. Kilbourne, 111 Mo.App. 542, 86 S.W. 275; Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671. "Neither did defendants satisfy the requirement of the law as to the proof of the oral agreement. The weight of the evidence on this fact was i......
-
Grapette Co. v. Grapette Bottling Co., No. 7383
...available to defendants since it was not pleaded in their answer. Section 509.090, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Consult Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671, 673-674(3, 5); Frank v. Myers, 232 Mo.App. 681, 109 S.W.2d 54, 57(3); Sevier v. Harmon, Mo.App., 261 S.W. 348(2); Tuepker v. Sovereign Ca......
-
Forbis v. Forbis, No. 7337
...basis for evidence of alleged misconduct by plaintiff offered in justification of defendant's action. Page 805 Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671, 674(5-7). However, over objections of plaintiff's counsel predicated not only on that principle but also on the well-established general ......
-
E v. G, Nos. 7702
...Mo.App., 200 S.W.2d 80; Gregg v. Gregg, Mo.App., 272 S.W.2d 855; Zerega v. Zerega, Mo.App., 200 S.W. 700. 17 Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671(5). 18 See Downing v. Downing, Mo.App., 279 S.W.2d 538; see Adams v. Adams, 49 Mo.App. 19 See the comparison of living costs made in Burtrum......
-
Mary Potter Love, Inc. v. Medart, No. 27102.
...to prove it was improperly admitted. Brockman Commission Co. v. Kilbourne, 111 Mo.App. 542, 86 S.W. 275; Farley v. Farley, Mo.App., 181 S.W.2d 671. "Neither did defendants satisfy the requirement of the law as to the proof of the oral agreement. The weight of the evidence on this fact was i......