Hoernig v. Hoernig

• Decision Date: 26 February 1901
• Citation: 109 Wis. 229,85 N.W. 346
• Parties: HOERNIG v. HOERNIG.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

109 Wis. 229

85 N.W. 346

HOERNIG

v.HOERNIG.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 26, 1901.

Appeal from circuit court, Winnebago county; George W. Burnell, Judge.

Action by Emile Hoernig against Charles A. Hoernig for divorce. From a judgment granting divorce, and from a part of the judgment making division of the property, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action of divorce, brought by the wife on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The divorce was granted, and the property of the parties divided, and the plaintiff appeals from that part of the judgment making division of the property and fixing the amount to be paid the plaintiff for the support of the son of the parties. The facts were that the parties were married in 1884. One son, Carl Hoernig (still living), was born in 1892, as the issue of the marriage. The defendant was the proprietor of a meat market when the parties were married, and possessed a store building in Oshkosh, worth $8,000. The plaintiff had no property. Soon after the marriage, the plaintiff began to work in the meat market, keeping books, waiting on customers, and having charge of the business during the defendant's absence. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff did this voluntarily or under compulsion, but the court found that she did it voluntarily. Her services were valuable in the business, and it prospered. In December, 1890, the defendant, in anger, struck and choked the plaintiff, and she left the defendant, and went home to her parents; but in a few days, however, she returned on defendant's promise of kindness in the future, and continued to assist in the meat-market business as before. In 1893 the defendant went into the distilling business (his wife still managing the meat market), and lost nine or ten thousand dollars in it. Afterwards he went into the business of manufacturing caskets, and lost a thousand dollars in that. The meat-market business was successful, however, and some property was accumulated. The plaintiff claims, and the court found, that in 1894 and 1895 the plaintiff received from her father $1,500, and invested it in the defendant's business. The plaintiff also claimed, and the court found, that the defendant continued to treat the plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner after her return in 1890, rendering it unsafe and improper for the plaintiff to live with him. She finally left the defendant in June, 1899, when she went to live with her parents at Fond du Lac, taking her young son with her. At the time of the trial of the action the parties owned real estate in Oshkosh, the title to all of which was in the plaintiff, as follows: A homestead, worth $6,000; a store, called the “Carr Bros. Store,” worth $9,000 (both of these parcels were covered by a mortgage for $5,500); another store, called the “Pelton Store,” worth $8,000, and mortgaged for $7,000; three other parcels of real estate, not mortgaged, worth, in the aggregate, $4,500. The parties also held three good notes, called the “Athern Notes,” for the face value of $3,000, which had also been transferred to plaintiff. The value of all this property was found by the court to be $30,500. At the same time the defendant had, as the court found, personal property as follows: Good accounts, $3,000; stock in trade, $1,200; fixtures, $400; a life insurance policy, partially paid, worth $500,--making in all $5,100. Thus the total property of the parties, as found by the court (except household furniture of little value), was $35,600, and the mortgage indebtedness was $12,500, in addition to which the court found that the defendant owed $6,000; making a total indebtedness of $18,500, and leaving a net excess of property above indebtedness of $17,100. The proof showed that the homestead was conveyed to the plaintiff in February,...