Henriksen v. Henriksen
| Citation | 216 N.W. 636,205 Iowa 684 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 38107 |
| Parties | ANDREW HENRIKSEN, Appellant, v. FRONIE HENRIKSEN, Appellee |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
REHEARING DENIED MARCH 10, 1928.
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--MILES W. NEWBY, Judge.
Action by the husband for a divorce. Decree dismissing the petition and the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Naglestad Pizey & Johnson, for appellant.
O. D. Nickle and Clay Jensen, for appellee.
The parties to this action were married March 3, 1905, and were, at the time of the trial, aged 50 and 53 years respectively. Appellee had been divorced and previously married. She secured a divorce from her first husband, remarried, and was a widow at the time of her marriage to appellant. The ground upon which a divorce is asked is cruel and inhuman treatment. The record disclosed a somewhat remarkable state of facts. At the time of the marriage, appellee possessed some money and property, and appellant was engaged in farming, but was heavily in debt. Before they left the farm, all of the property of the parties had been dissipated, and appellee had become indebted in the sum of $ 600. Appellant is a machinist and blacksmith, and for a number of years after he left the farm, was employed in Sioux City as a mechanic. Appellee also secured employment, and worked hard. About September, 1917, appellant secured a blacksmith shop, and engaged in business for himself. He is an expert welder, and soon acquired a good business. During the time he owned and operated the blacksmith shop, appellee worked therein to some extent, kept books, and grew flowers and bulbs for sale. Later, she inherited $ 13,000 from her father's estate. During the few years appellant ran the blacksmith shop, the parties accumulated substantially $ 40,000. Perhaps $ 5,000 of this sum represented the profits from the sale of flowers and bulbs. These accumulations, together with the $ 13,000 appellee had inherited, were largely invested in bonds. A joint checking account was kept at a bank in Sioux City, and the bonds were taken separately in the names of the respective parties. They were kept in a private box in a bank, to which each had free access. Prior to the commencement of this action, appellee obtained possession of all of the bonds, which she retained at the time of the trial. There was a balance in the joint account in the bank of about $ 2,400 at that time.
A detailed statement of the evidence will serve no useful purpose. The record is full of crimination and recrimination, and it is not an easy matter to ascertain the truth therefrom. Appellee was apparently the better financier, but appellant was industrious and expert in his trade.
The principal matters relied upon by appellant for a divorce are the alleged nagging of his wife and her oft repeated accusations against him of marital infidelity. Altercations occurred between them, and a few incidents are detailed in the testimony. Upon one occasion, appellee received a cut on her wrist, which necessitated medical treatment; but whether it was purposely or accidentally inflicted is not quite clear,--probably the former. Appellant testified that, upon one occasion, appellee threw a piece of iron at him, and at the same time applied an opprobrious epithet. Both of the parties appear to have been more or less addicted to the use of rather coarse, and perhaps profane, language,--particularly appellant. Appellee evidently believed that appellant was guilty of gross immorality, and no doubt she frequently charged him therewith. On the question of appellant's chastity, the record is more or less indefinite. The testimony of several witnesses indicating an immoral tendency was offered, but it is, on the whole, insufficient to prove guilt. During some months shortly preceding the commencement of this action, appellee was ill, submitted to one or more severe operations, was nervous, fretful, and doubtless difficult to live with. If she was jealous, she was not wholly without grounds therefor. Numerous neighbors, called as witnesses, testified to many good qualities on the part of both, and from their testimony we conclude that their married life was not always unhappy.
To entitle appellant to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, two elements must be shown: that is, the treatment must have been cruel and inhuman, and must have been such as to endanger his life. Freerking v....
To continue reading
Request your trial