Hartl v. Hartl

• Decision Date: 10 May 1912
• Citation: 155 Iowa 329,135 N.W. 1007
• Parties: HARTL v. HARTL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

155 Iowa 329

135 N.W. 1007

HARTL

v.HARTL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 10, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Linn County; Milo P. Smith, Judge.

A decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was prayed in the petition. The defendant answered, and in a cross-petition a like decree was sought on the same ground and because of habitual drunkenness on the part of plaintiff. On hearing a decree of divorce was entered on the cross-petition, but, as the division of property was not satisfactory to defendant, she appeals. Affirmed.Crosby & Fordyce, of Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Joseph Mekota and Dawley & Wheeler, all of Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

LADD, J.

[1] The parties hereto were married in Bohemia, and reached Cedar Rapids with two babies and $40 in 1887. He found employment at $1.50 per day, and at the end of three years they had saved $300, and then purchased 20 acres of land, and moved thereon. Since then their estate has increased, until, at the time of the trial, they owned in severalty a farm of 256 acres, on which they resided, six or seven miles from Cedar Rapids, worth from $100 to $120 per acre, with an incumbrance thereon of $2,375. The value of their personal property is estimated at $4,000 besides the crop of 1910. Their family also had increased so that there were ten children. One son, 24 years of age, had married, and had been given money and other property amounting in value to $2,000. The next two, Albert and Agnes, had attained their majority. The decree of divorce was granted to defendant on her cross-petition, and she was awarded the custody of the remaining seven children, Edward and Frank, 16 and 14 years of age, Julia, Emma, and Rosa, 13, 11 and 9, and John, 7 years old. The right hand of Emma is crippled, having but one finger. This decree awarded to defendant all the personal property, and 120 acres of the farm purchased of Mackey, she to pay the mortgage thereon of $2,375, and awarded the plaintiff the 81 acres known as the Miller farm, and 55 acres of the land bought of Mackey. The only evidence of the value of the respective tracts is that of plaintiff, who estimated the 120 acres to be worth $140 per acre and the 136 acres at $100 per acre. This was somewhat corroborated by proof of the character of the respective tracts and the improvements thereon, and, in the absence of anything in the record to the contrary, must be accepted. The value then of the land assigned to defendant was $16,800, and of that assigned to the plaintiff $13,600. Aside from this, defendant is given all the personal property, but is charged with the payment of the incumbrance of $2,375. It may well be presumed that, in the operation of the smaller farm, all of this property will not be necessary, and doubtless the court had in mind that after the payment of the incumbrance out of the personal property and the crop of 1910 there would be enough left with which to operate the farm assigned to her. The result is that she is allowed something over $4,000 in value more than he out of which to maintain the children. In view of the circumstance that these children will be of much assistance to her in operating the farm, we are not inclined to regard the division as inequitable.

Nothing will be accomplished by...