Kurz v. Kurz

• Decision Date: 05 June 1906
• Parties: KURZ v. KURZ.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 242

119 Mo. App. 53

KURZ v. KURZ.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 5, 1906.

HUSBAND AND WIFE—SEPARATE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE—GROUNDS—EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

In an action by a wife for support and maintenance for herself and children, evidence considered, and held sufficient to have justified the wife in separating from the husband.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Action by Mary Kurz against John Kurz to compel defendant to furnish plaintiff and her children support and maintenance. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Tapley & Fitzgerrell, for appellant. Pearson & Pearson, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

These parties are husband and wife, and this action is to compel the defendant to furnish support and maintenance for plaintiff and her two minor children. The parties are both Germans by birth, were married in St. Louis in 1875, lived there some 10 years, and then moved to Ralls county, where they have lived 20 years. Plaintiff is 53 years old, and defendant 66. The separation occurred September 2, 1903, on which day plaintiff left her home in Ralls county and went to live with her married daughter. Defendant has furnished her nothing to live on since. Seven children were born of this marriage, four sons and three daughters, and all but two of the children are of full age. The minors are two girls of 10 and 12 years, respectively. The couple have prospered in life, for the evidence shows defendant has a farm of 835 acres in Ralls county, well improved and stocked with cattle and horses, and supplied with farming implements, and that he has some $14,000 to $16,000 of money loaned. He testified that he was worth $7,000 when he married, but his wife testified that he was not worth over $2,000 at that time. It is evident that he has accumulated much property since his marriage, and evident, too, that he and his wife have been a hard-working couple. She carried on the usual housework on a farm, sold eggs, butter, and chickens to get money for her personal expenses, and in every way contributed her portion of the industry required to succeed.

The petition alleges that plaintiff left defendant because his treatment rendered her condition intolerable. He is said to have subjected her to indignities, called her vile names, to have been morose and crabbed, never to have exhibited any affection, and by persevering continually in such conduct to have driven her from home. The testimony of the witnesses is that defendant was of a morose, taciturn, and gloomy nature; but there was some conflict regarding the manner in which he treated his wife. If she and her children are to be believed, this treatment was of a brutal character in every...