Gallagher v. Gallagher
| Decision Date | 05 February 1895 |
| Parties | GALLAGHER v. GALLAGHER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Sheboygan county; N. S. Gilson, Judge.
Action by William Gallagher against Mary A. Gallagher. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.
This is an action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. It appears that the parties were married in 1848, and are now 62 years of age, and that their children are all adults. On the trial much testimony was produced as to the alleged cruel and inhuman treatment, but it is not necessary to state it here. It appears that at the time the action was commenced the parties owned 280 acres of land in Sheboygan county. Of this land, the title to the homestead 40 acres was in the husband, and the title to the balance was in the wife. It was all clear of incumbrances, except a mortgage of $1,000 upon 80 acres of the land, the title to which land was in the wife. The entire real estate was of the value of about $15,000. There was also some personal property, consisting of a mortgage of $1,400, running to the wife, and stock, farm machinery, and grain, of the value of about $8,000. The circumstances under which this property was accumulated are briefly as follows: When the parties were married the defendant had title to an unimproved 40 acres of land in Washington county, which had cost her $50, and she also had some money, the amount of which is somewhat uncertain from the evidence, but she claims it to have been about the sum of $300. The husband testifies that he had some earnings in money, but the amount of the earnings does not appear. After the marriage the parties commenced to live on this 40 acres of land, and the husband built a small house and other buildings thereon. They lived there, improving the property by their joint efforts, for two years, and then sold it for $335, and with the proceeds of the sale purchased another 40 acres in the same county, the title of which was taken in the name of the husband. The husband made improvements upon this place, and the parties lived upon it four years, and then sold it for $550, and bought 80 acres of land in the town of Scott, Sheboygan county, for the sum of $275, the title of which was also taken in the name of the husband. Upon this place the parties lived for eight years, making improvements thereon, and accumulating personal property, and then sold it for $1,200, and immediately bought 80 acres of land in the town of Lima, in Sheboygan county, the title to 40 acres of which was taken in the husband's name, and 40 acres in the wife's name. Here they lived until this action was brought, working the farm together, and accumulating money and property. From time to time, out of the net proceeds of their joint labors, they bought the remaining 200 acres of land which they now own, the title to all of which is taken in the wife's name. It appears that the wife commenced at an early day to make loans of her separate money, and of the money arising from the profits of the farms, taking the securities for such loans in her own name, apparently with the consent of her husband; and she now has in her name the $1,400 mortgage before spoken of, and claims the title to all the stock, farming implements, and grain. The court made findings of fact to the effect that the defendant had treated the plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner, as alleged in his complaint, and that the counter allegations of cruelty made by the defendant were not proven; that the real and personal property before referred to was held by the parties substantially as in the foregoing statement set forth; “that said real estate and personal property so held in the name of the said defendant was mostly derived from the work, thrift, and industry of the said plaintiff, with the co-operation therein of the said defendant, and the title thereof placed in the said defendant by consent of the plaintiff, or through the insistence of the defendant, and not as the fruit or separate property of the said defendant, except for a small amount thereof, and each had a small amount of separate property at the commencement of such acquisitions.” As conclusions of law, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment of divorce from bed and board forever; also, to an equitable division of the property held in the name of the defendant, and that a final division thereof should be had as follows: The plaintiff to retain the 40 acres of land whereof title is held by him, and, in addition thereto, two other 40-acre pieces of land, of which the title is in the defendant; also, that the defendant deliver to the plaintiff the sum of $1,100, or, in lieu thereof, $100 in cash, and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...upon the property, and in interest upon the first mortgages, more than the cost of the house. Within the rule laid down in Gallagher v. Gallagher, 89 Wis. 461 we are forced to the conclusion that this homestead was not property derived from the husband.” In Houghton v. Milburn and Wife, 54 ......
-
Martin v. Martin
...but all property held in the wife's name which was substantially derived, mediately or immediately, from the husband.” Gallagher v. Gallagher, 89 Wis. 461, 61 N. W. 1104;Gallager v. Gallager, 101 Wis. 202, 206, 207, 77 N. W. 145. See, also, Frackelton v. Frackelton, 103 Wis. 673, 677, 678, ......
- Block v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co.
-
State Highways and Transp. Com'n of Missouri v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Revenue
...secondarily therefrom. Cf. State Highway Commission v. Spainhower, 504 S.W.2d 121 (Mo.1973); Matthews, supra. In Gallagher v. Gallagher, 89 Wis. 461, 61 N.W. 1104 (1895), the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the notion that the words "property derived from the husband" included only that pr......