Lemaster v. Lemaster
| Decision Date | 09 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 287 |
| Citation | 249 S.W. 589,158 Ark. 206 |
| Parties | LEMASTER v. LEMASTER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded.
George M. Heard and John D. Shackleford, for appellant.
Appellant was entitled to a decree on the ground of such indignities to her person as rendered her condition intolerable. Sec. 3500 Crawford & Moses' Digest. Haley v Haley, 44 Ark. 429; Meffert v Meffert, 118 Ark. 582; Shirley v. Shirley, 87 Ark. 175. Case should be reversed and remanded with directions to enter a decree of divorce for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
This is an action by the appellant against the appellee for a divorce. The appellant, in her complaint, alleges various acts of neglect and maltreatment of her by appellee, which, taken together, are sufficient to state a cause of action for divorce on the ground of such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable. The allegations of the complaint are specifically denied in the answer.
The Lemasters were married on the 23rd of February, 1898, and they lived together as husband and wife until the 30th of November, 1916, and, at the time of the hearing, had been married about twenty-four years. At that time they had seven living children, five girls and two boys, ranging in ages from twenty-two to nine. The oldest daughter is grown and married, and the other four daughters are still at home. The girls living at home are respectively sixteen, fourteen, twelve and nine. The boys, at the time of the hearing, were respectively twenty-one and nineteen years of age. The father and mother both testified in the cause, and likewise the two boys and the three older girls. It could serve no useful purpose as a precedent to set out in detail the testimony of the members of the family tending to show their present unhappy state. Indeed, it is best for all concerned not to spread at length upon the record the testimony of the father and mother concerning their domestic relations from the time of their marriage down to the rendition of the decree, and the testimony of the children concerning the conduct of their parents towards each other as far back as any of them could remember. Suffice it to say that the testimony of the mother and the three daughters is amply sufficient to sustain the allegations of the complaint.
On the other hand, the testimony of the appellee and the two boys tended to prove that the conduct of the appellee toward the appellant was not such as to render her condition in life intolerable, and therefore not such as to warrant a decree of absolute divorce. Witnesses testified on behalf of the appellant, and also on behalf of the appellee, who were not related in any manner to the parties litigant. But none of these were in a situation to know, as were the parties themselves and their children, the facts concerning the intimate relation between the appellant and the appellee and their conduct towards each other which brought about the unfortunate and irreconcilable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClain v. McClain, 5-195
...not without fault, we also find that appellee was the chief offender and we think a divorce should be granted appellant. LeMaster v. LeMaster, 158 Ark. 206, 249 S.W. 589.' And in the case at bar, there is this language in the majority opinion: 'From the testimony of a number of witnesses, i......
- Indiana Lumbermen's Mutual Insurance Company v. Meyers Stave & Manufacturing Company
-
Hensley v. Hensley
... ... without fault, we also find that appellee was the chief ... offender and we think a divorce should be granted appellant ... Lemaster v. Lemaster, 158 Ark. 206, 249 ... S.W. 589 ... ...
- Lemaster v. Lemaster