Haagen v. Haagen
| Decision Date | 04 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 20265.,20265. |
| Citation | 11 S.W.2d 757 |
| Parties | HAAGEN v. HAAGEN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Divorce suit by Ella Haagen against Fred Haagen. Heard on motions of the parties after decree. From orders overruling defendant's motion and sustaining that of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Sam Hatupin, of St. Louis (Greensfelder, Rosenberger & Grand, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant.
On November 1, 1921, a decree was rendered in this cause by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, whereby the court granted plaintiff a divorce from the defendant, awarded plaintiff the care, custody, and control of Bernice and Mildred, the infant children of plaintiff and defendant, and ordered that defendant pay plaintiff $10 per week for the support and maintenance of the children, and that, so long as defendant should comply with the order for support and maintenance of the children, he should be permitted to visit the children on Saturday and Sunday afternoon of each week, until further order of the court.
On May 12, 1927, defendant filed in the cause a motion asking the court to modify the decree of divorce and award the custody of the children to him. As grounds for said motion, it is alleged therein in substance, that plaintiff has refused to permit the defendant to visit said children on the days set and appointed by the order of the court; that Bernice has been placed by said court in the Epworth League School of Webster Groves, St. Louis county, Mo.; that Mildred has been sent to the state of Kansas by the plaintiff without the consent of the defendant; that the $10 per week paid by him, pursuant to the order of the court, for the purpose of supporting said children, has never been used for the benefit of the children, but has been kept and used by plaintiff for her own purposes; that the plaintiff has no home for said children, and is not a fit person to have the custody of said children; that plaintiff has failed to comply with the order of the court granting him permission to visit said children; that since the divorce was granted, defendant has married, and now has a home, at 6512 Plymouth avenue, in the city of St. Louis, for said children, where he and his wife are now living; and that his wife is willing to take said children and give them a home and take care of them.
On May 20, 1927, plaintiff filed a motion to allow plaintiff a reasonable sum to enable her to employ an attorney to represent her in defending defendant's motion. On the same day these motions were heard. Defendant's motion was overruled. Plaintiff's motion was sustained, and plaintiff was allowed the sum of $25 as an attorney's fee. From these orders the defendant appeals.
Bernice, at the time of the hearing of the motions, was 16 years old, and Mildred was 14. Bernice was in the Epworth League School, and Mildred was at Arkansas City, Kan., with her aunt, the plaintiff's sister, and was attending the public school in said city. Plaintiff had a position in a department store, and also conducted a rooming house, in the city of St. Louis. Defendant was employed and received a wage of $30 per week. He and his wife resided in a three-room house at 6512 Plymouth avenue. He introduced several witnesses who testified that this was a nice home, and that he and his wife were nice people, of good reputation. His wife testified that she was willing to take the children in the home and take care of them. There is no evidence whatever that plaintiff is an unfit person to have the custody of her children. She testified that she desired to have the custody of her children, and that she had fought for them for 8 years. Defendant's wife has a son 21 years old by a former husband. He sometimes stays in the home, but is usually away. Not long prior to the filing of his motion, defendant defaulted in weekly payments due for the support and maintenance of the children, aggregating $160, and plaintiff caused his wages to be garnished for the satisfaction of these delinquent payments. Defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poor v. Poor
...v. Ingram, 24 S.W.2d 1048; Ellis v. Johnson, 218 Mo.App. 272; Knepper v. Knepper, 139 Mo.App. 493; Wells v. Wells, 117 S.W.2d 700; Haagen, 11 S.W.2d 757; v. Everts, 79 S.W.2d 536. (4) It is the obligation and legal duty of the husband, when marriage is dissolved for his fault and misconduct......
-
Herhalser v. Herhalser, 8490
...supra, 355 S.W.2d at 360(4); Fox v. Fox, Mo.App., 312 S.W.2d 362, 363(3); Crooks, supra, 197 S.W.2d at 685(17); Haagen v. Haagen, Mo.App., 11 S.W.2d 757, 758(2). So, the proceedings in all of the cases cited by instant plaintiff truly were ancillary in that they presupposed the existence of......
-
Wells v. Wells
...458; Waters v. Gray, Mo.App., 193 S.W. 33; Hill v. Hill, Mo. App., 277 S.W. 961; Kaplun v. Kaplun, Mo.App., 227 S.W. 894; Haagen v. Haagen, Mo.App., 11 S.W.2d 757; Schuster v. Schuster, Mo.App., 64 S.W.2d 134; Abel v. Ingram, 223 Mo.App. 1087, 24 S.W.2d 1048; Rone v. Rone, Mo.App., 20 S.W.2......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...50 Idaho 517, 297 P. 1100; Hipple v. Hipple, 128 Kan. 406, 278 P. 33; Chambers v. Chambers, 75 Neb. 850, 106 N.W. 993; Haagen v. Haagen, Mo.App., 11 S.W.2d 757. Accordingly, the judgment is HOLLAND, J., does not participate. ...