Klein v. Klein

• Decision Date: 18 October 1906
• Parties: KLEIN v. KLEIN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 848

KLEIN v. KLEIN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 18, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Suit for divorce by Garnett Klein against Lettie M. Klein. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff.

O'Neal & O'Neal, for appellant.

Emile Steinfeld, W. W. Watts, and Watts & Gifford, for appellee.

CARROLL C.

The parties to this litigation married in June, 1903, separated in October, 1903, and the appellee brought this action for alimony. In 1904, after the expiration of a year from the separation, appellant filed an amended answer and counterclaim, in which he sought a divorce from appellee on the ground of abandonment. The chancellor dismissed his counterclaim, awarded appellee $25 a month alimony, and he appeals.

At the time of the marriage these parties were about the same age appellant probably being a few months the younger. Appellee was a resident of Wisconsin, and previous to her marriage lived with her parents and was employed as a stenographer. Appellant resided with his parents in Louisville, Ky. and was engaged as a clerk, receiving an ordinary salary. He was the only living child of his parents, and had always made his home with them, and his mother especially was much opposed to his marriage with appellee or any one else. His parents were people in rather humble circumstances, his father made a living by labor and his mother did almost all the housework. They were industrious, frugal, plain people, and owned and occupied a comfortable home upon which they spent considerable time and money improving and beautifying for their intended daughter-in-law. Previous to the marriage there was no acquaintance between the families of the contracting parties, and appellee was an entire stranger in the city to which her husband took her. After a short bridal trip they begun their residence at the home of appellant's parents--no person living in the house except appellant and his wife and the two old people. Appellant's duties required him to be at his business during the day, and his father was also engaged with his labors--leaving no persons at home except appellee and her mother-in-law. In temperament, disposition, and taste, these two people were radically different. There was nothing congenial or in common between them, and it is perfectly apparent that appellee soon became dissatisfied with her surroundings and discontented with her lot. The evidence leaves the impression that she had been accustomed to a good deal of company, her employment placing her with congenial associations, and to be situated in a large city in a house with an old lady whose mind was more occupied with her household duties than in an effort to amuse or entertain her daughter-in-law, was tedious, burdensome, and unpleasant to appellee. There is no testimony reflecting in the slightest degree upon the character of appellee, nor indeed is there anything to show that appellant was not kind and attentive to his wife, or that he did not give her all the comforts and pleasures that his circumstances would permit. In fact, the case for appellee is rested upon the ground that the fault of appellant consisted in taking his wife to live in the same house with his mother and continuing her there when he discovered that the associations and surroundings were distasteful. There is evidence that the mother of appellant was a blunt, plain-spoken woman, and sometimes indulged in expressions that might grate harshly upon the ear of a refined and highly cultivated person. She spoke occasionally of her daughter-in-law as that "gal," and intimated on one or two occasions that she didn't have much patience with a woman 23 years old who didn't know how to do housework, and it seems that when attending the wedding in Wisconsin was greatly distressed about the approaching marriage of her son and said to several people whom she met that she didn't want her son to marry any person and that she would rather attend his funeral than see him marry that "gal." She had no more objection to his marriage to appellee than she would have had to his marriage with any other person. It was the fact of his marriage that distressed her, not the fact that he was going to marry appellee. With the exception of these rather coarse or indelicate speeches, it does not appear that appellant's mother used any harsh or offensive language to or about her daughter-in-law. The record leaves the impression that the father of appellant was very kind, pleasant, and agreeable to appellee, and contributed all that he could towards making her lot comfortable and happy, but she received his friendly advances with cool indifference. Soon after her arrival at his house, he discovered that she was discontented with her home,...