Gorbrandt v. Gorbrandt

• Decision Date: 19 January 1909
• Citation: 131 Ky. 395,115 S.W. 210
• Parties: GORBRANDT v. GORBRANDT.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

115 S.W. 210

131 Ky. 395

GORBRANDT v. GORBRANDT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 19, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Matilda W. Gorbrandt against W. G. Gorbrandt for alimony in which defendant filed an answer praying a divorce. From a decree awarding alimony, and denying a divorce, both parties appeal. Judgment on cross-appeal affirmed, and judgment on original appeal reversed and cause remanded.

Andrew M. Sea, Jr., for appellant.

James W. Garrison, for appellee.

CLAY C.

Plaintiff Matilda W. Gorbrandt, instituted this action against William G. Gorbrandt for alimony. Defendant denied the allegations of the petition, and in an amended and supplemental answer charged that the plaintiff without fault on his part abandoned him, and asked that he be granted a divorce from her. The chancellor awarded plaintiff alimony in the sum of $20 per month, and directed that the defendant pay the costs of the action, including plaintiff's attorney's fee of $500. The divorce sought by the defendant was denied, and plaintiff and defendant both appeal.

The ground of plaintiff's complaint was that the defendant acted toward her in such a cruel and inhuman manner as to indicate a settled aversion to her, and to destroy permanently her peace and happiness; that she was subjected to continual mortification of mind by reason of the negligence, disdain, and contentious conduct of defendant and his adult daughter towards her and her child; that, when she moved to defendant's home, her position therein was made so disagreeable that she was compelled to, and did, leave defendant's home on the 30th day of January, 1906. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff was a widow; her husband having been dead about two years. She had three children, two of whom were grown, and the other was a young girl about 15 years old. Plaintiff never had any estate, but lived in humble quarters in the city of Louisville, and was dependent upon her brother and her grown son, each of whom contributed to her support. Defendant, William G. Gorbrandt, lived in Jefferson county, Ky. and was possessed of considerable property. He was a thrifty, enterprising, and economical German. The house in which he lived consisted of eight rooms and was comfortably furnished. At the time of his marriage the defendant was a widower; his wife having been dead about two years. By his former wife he had eight children, who were all grown and married. At the time of their marriage the plaintiff and defendant were both over 50 years of age; the defendant being somewhat the older. The marriage took place on November 29, 1905, and plaintiff left defendant's home. January 30, 1906.

Prior to their marriage the defendant wrote plaintiff the following letter: "Ankerich, Ky. 1905. My Dearest Friend, Mrs. T. Wheppler: I thought I would drop you a few lines to let you know I am feeling bad and got a bad eye so I can't rest of night but I hope when thease few lines reaches you will find you all right well and feeling good but that isn't the case with me at present times I am thisgusted and got the bloos wery much from the news that I have heard lately schould been said by some of your friends said that Mrs. T. Wheppler hasent been well for several years and is subject of Rumatisam every winter and every time get damp feet and my children found out that I am awaiting on you says papa don't mairey no woman with children whatever you do, dear brother Will don't you know what for a time you have had with meale [his first wife] for leven years sick and no pease after all the hard work you don. My dear friend Whepler you don't know how bad I feel over all this news I heard here lately is enuf to make sick give me bloos you know that I would never want to go threw what I went true with in the last tweff years for all whemman on earth unless she was well and helty so she could help me out some times and not me awaiting on her all my time for I have run to much hard time with poor first whife--God bless her. Well I hope you don't feel bad about this letter for I am thisgusted about this metter. I hope you went up to the dentist and had your roots poled so you can have your teeth fixed up in stile I will do it myself and so I will close now so good bye. Yours Truley, W. G. Gorbrandt." Upon receiving this letter plaintiff consulted her attorney, who thereupon wrote defendant that he had been employed to institute suit against him for the sum of $15,000 on account of his failure to carry out his marriage contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff's attorney also suggested in his letter that it would be preferable to have some adjustment of the matter without the notoriety of court proceedings, but that, unless this was done, suit would be instituted without delay. This letter was written on November 8, 1905. Soon thereafter the marriage took place.

It is insisted by counsel for appellee that it was defendant's purpose from the day he received the letter threatening to sue him for damages for breach of promise to marry plaintiff and thereafter make it so unpleasant for her that she would be forced to leave his home; that this purpose is shown by defendant's subsequent conduct. In our opinion it is just as reasonable to suppose that plaintiff desired to obtain defendant's money rather than to marry him. She first threatened him with suit for damages for failure to carry out his marriage contract, and, when he married her, she left his home in about two months, and instituted this action for alimony. However this may be, the merits of the contentions of the two parties must depend upon the evidence in the record. The record is voluminous. It contains much irrelevant and incompetent testimony, and but very little that bears directly upon the...