Klamp v. Klamp

• Decision Date: 17 March 1897
• Docket Number: 7170
• Citation: 70 N.W. 525,51 Neb. 17
• Parties: CHARLES KLAMP, APPELLANT, v. ELLEN KLAMP ET AL., APPELLEES
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

70 N.W. 525

51 Neb. 17

CHARLES KLAMP, APPELLANT, v. ELLEN KLAMP ET AL., APPELLEES

No. 7170

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 17, 1897

APPEAL from the district court of Lancaster county. Heard below before TIBBETS, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Lamb Adams & Scott and Howard & Bridges, for appellant.

Sawyer Snell & Frost, contra.

OPINION

HARRISON, J.

It appears that the two main parties litigants in this cause,--Charles Klamp, who instituted the suit in the district court of Lancaster county, and Ellen Klamp, of defendants therein,--are husband and wife; that they were married in the city of Chicago on or about the 7th day of February, 1867. After residing in Chicago a few years they removed to the town of Barrington, Illinois, and thence, in the year 1875, to Lancaster county, this state, where a piece of land was purchased of the Burlington & Missouri Railroad Company, on which they settled and it became, or they made it, a home. On the 8th day of August, 1893, a piece of school land in Seward county was purchased of one of the bankers in Seward (the name does not appear in the evidence), who assigned the contract of purchase thereof to Ellen Klamp. On the part of the husband it was asserted in this action that, at the time of the marriage of the parties, he was owner of a house and lot in Chicago, and that the wife had no money or property. It was claimed for appellee that she, at the time last stated, had some money with which she then purchased a lot in Chicago and had erected thereon a house. She further stated that the appellant, who was a carpenter labored on the house while it was in process of erection. The house was destroyed by fire in the great Chicago fire in 1871. The building was insured, but the company under whose policy it was insured was insolvent or for some reason did not pay the insurance money. Mrs. Klamp both pleaded and introduced evidence to prove that she had some money, specifically stating whence it came, with which she caused another house to be constructed on the lot, and that the appellant contributed his labors in forwarding the building. When the parties left Chicago for Barrington, the Chicago property was exchanged for some property in Barrington, which was subsequently sold for $ 3,000, a portion of which was in cash, and the balance evidenced by promissory notes of the purchaser. The titles of the Chicago and Barrington properties were claimed, during the trial, to have been in the name of appellee, Ellen Klamp. From the proceeds of the notes given for a part of the price of the Barrington property as they were paid the payments of the purchase price of the Lancaster county farm were made. At the time of its purchase the contract, which was one providing for payment by installments, was issued by the railroad company to Charles Klamp as purchaser. He afterwards assigned the contract to the appellee, to whom, on June 2, 1879, a deed was executed by the railroad company and delivered August 7, 1879. The Seward county land was bought with money derived from the sale of live stock and produce from the Lancaster county farm, together with small contributions of earnings of some of the children of the parties, also money earned by Mrs. Klamp in working for neighbors and some paid to her for services as a midwife. The appellant, during a portion of the time since the family commenced its life on the Lancaster county farm, has spent his time there and assisted in erecting buildings thereon, and in the general labors of the farm; during other portions of the time he was engaged to work as a carpenter, where such work was to be done, and he obtained employment. What he did with any wages he may have received does not appear. It was not shown, however, that any specific amount of them was expended in improvements on the farm or in the support of the wife and children. Mrs. Klamp lived on, and apparently managed the farm, sold, or caused to be sold, the live stock and produce of the farm, and received the moneys derived from such sales. To this last there were a few exceptions. The appellant is shown to have sold some stock and a large quantity of grain from the farm, and appropriated the proceeds thereof and a team of horses and wagon to his own particular uses and purposes. With these he went down to Kansas, where he stayed several months, and then returned to Nebraska and the farm, with neither money, team nor wagon, bringing back with him one old pony and buggy and a revolver, but the inference may be drawn from the evidence (though possibly it is not material) that he had, while gone, spent the money and probably the proceeds of the property in catering to the satisfaction of his tastes and inclinations in certain directions. The appellee finally sold all the live stock and implements on the farm, also the household goods, and leased the farm to a son-in-law, and thus destroyed the home as it existed, though the appellant, if we give credence to the evidence adduced at the trial, had not shown a very great partiality for the home for...