Humphrey v. Humphrey
| Decision Date | 28 November 1905 |
| Parties | HUMPHREY, Appellant, v. HUMPHREY, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Daniel G. Taylor Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J. S McIntyre for appellant.
Prior to their marriage in November, 1901, plaintiff was a resident of Chicago, Illinois, and defendant of St. Louis, Missouri, he being a practicing physician and having an office in said city. After the marriage the parties resided together as man and wife at the West End Hotel, in said city of St. Louis, plaintiff paying the board bills for both parties. About November 2, 1903, the defendant packed his trunk and left the West End Hotel, informing plaintiff that he was leaving her permanently and did not intend to live with her again. On November 17, 1904, a few days over a year from the date of the abandonment, plaintiff commenced her suit against the defendant for a divorce on the statutory ground of abandonment without just cause or excuse. Personal service was had on defendant, but he filed no answer. He was subpoenaed as a witness, however, and testified that when he left the plaintiff at the West End Hotel, November 2, 1903, he left with the intention of not living with her as his wife again and that that intention had continued to the time of the trial.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff was a kind and affectionate wife, a woman of refinement and of irreproachable character, and that the abandonment by her husband was wholly without cause. Notwithstanding this evidence, the circuit court refused to grant her a divorce and dismissed her bill on the ground, as stated in brief of counsel, that the court was of opinion that plaintiff had not been a resident of the State of Missouri for one whole year next before the filing of her petition. On this branch of the case, the evidence shows that defendant has not changed his residence; that plaintiff has considerable means of her own and has children living in Battle Creek, Michigan; that she has been in poor health for some years and had been prior to her marriage to defendant, and had been treated by a physician in Chicago before and after her marriage; that she had undergone two operations in that city and expected to have to undergo a third; that she continued to reside at the West End Hotel for about two weeks after her husband abandoned her and then went to Chicago and stopped at a hotel, registering as from St. Louis; that she bought goods of Marshall Field & Co., of Chicago, on credit and ordered the bills to be directed to her at St. Louis; that she visited her children at Battle Creek, Michigan, for about six weeks and visited California and remained there several weeks. Plaintiff testified that at all times after her marriage she considered St. Louis her home, still considered it her home, so informed her friends and so registered at hotels where she stopped. She is corroborated in these statements by the evidence of her friends and by the registers of hotels where she stopped, and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record showing that she abandoned her home in the city of St. Louis.
A domicile is the place where a person lives and has his home. [Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. 350, 22 L.Ed 584; Anderson v. Estate of Anderson, 42 Vt. 350; Borland v. Boston, 132 Mass. 89.] There is no doubt that by marrying defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial