Littleton v. Littleton

• Decision Date: 15 June 1943
• Docket Number: 46264.
• Citation: 10 N.W.2d 57,233 Iowa 1020
• Parties: LITTLETON v. LITTLETON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

10 N.W.2d 57

233 Iowa 1020

LITTLETON v. LITTLETON.

No. 46264.

Supreme Court of Iowa

June 15, 1943

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1943.

O M. Slaymaker, R. E. Killmar, and D. D. Slaymaker, all of Osceola, for appellant.

G C. Stuart, of Chariton, for appellee.

BLISS Justice.

Plaintiff and defendant, of the ages of fifty-four and fifty-three years respectively, at the time of the trial, were married January 31, 1937, and lived together until October 2, 1940. On the latter date the plaintiff left their home and never thereafter lived with the defendant. For thirty-five years he had been in the employ of the Burlington Railroad Company as telegraph operator and station agent. He was so employed at Chariton, Iowa, during the married life of the parties. He had experienced two previous matrimonial ventures, each terminated by a divorce procured by the wife. The first ended after nineteen years of matrimony, and the second, before the close of the first year. One son is living as the issue of the first marriage. The defendant's first connubial voyage also ended in the divorce court nineteen years after they set sail, on the petition of the plaintiff. No children blessed this union. She then became a practical nurse, which profession she was following when the marriage in controversy was consummated.

When the plaintiff separated from the defendant he took with him only his clothes, and left his wife in possession of their rented apartment, where she continued to live for several months when she returned to her own home in Pella. This home she acquired in the dissolution of her first marriage. The plaintiff has been living with his mother since leaving the defendant.

Plaintiff filed his petition on October 24, 1940, praying an absolute divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment, seriously affecting his health and endangering his life. The defendant filed answer denying generally, and a cross-petition asking separate maintenance. By agreement the plaintiff paid defendant $45 a month pending trial.

The trial was conducted most efficiently before an able judge. It would serve no purpose either to the profession or to the public to detail with any particularity the evidence produced. While it had some variations it followed a pattern very familiar to the bench and the bar. The plaintiff called but one witness, a lady thirty-five years old, who worked in the home about a year. The defendant's sister and a doctor testified for her. If the plaintiff is to be believed the defendant is a woman of violent temper and ugly disposition, with a vicious tongue and a strong arm, who began a course of nagging, faultfinding, cursing and abuse, a month after their marriage, which continued with little interruption, both day and night, while he was in her presence, until he could stand it no longer and ran from the home on October 2, 1940. In order to get some rest he would leave their bed and go to the davenport. On one such occasion she followed him there and accompanied her tirade with a good pummeling. She burdened him considerably with her relatives. Of this, the plaintiff concedes he made little complaint and that he consented thereto. An aunt of the defendant was with them for two or three periods of some length. She was eighty-one years old. A sister of the defendant, almost eighty years old, was with them over a year, and died in their home. Another sister, living at Pella, widowed shortly before, was frequently in their home. After being in a Des Moines hospital because of a broken leg, she came from Des Moines, where her married son maintained a home, to convalesce for five weeks in the home of the parties hereto. The other sister was also in the home at the same time. All of this added substantially to the expense of the home, and was not conducive to harmony. The plaintiff worked seven days each week from 8 o'clock A. M. to 4 o'clock P. M. each day. His monthly pay was somewhat in excess of $200, but he was unable to meet his current obligations. He complained of his wife's lack of economy, though promising to, she failed to regard his admonitions. He gave her weekly cash allowances for groceries, but she charged most of them, and even had checks cashed at one grocery store. He testified that in her weekly or bi-weekly trips to her sister's home at Pella she carried many groceries in the back of the car which he paid for. His witness corroborated him in this, and in much that we have already stated. This witness testified of the defendant: "She had a terrible temper. I have seen her race through the rooms like a wild person. I would be scared to meet her. I was afraid of her. Everybody was afraid of her. She would curse. I have seen her take her hand back and then decide not to strike. She would be just raving. It was almost a daily occurrence. Mr. Littleton didn't have much to say, if anything. She was very nice when strangers would come in, or anybody from Pella. As soon as they left we all caught it if we had said something that she thought we shouldn't say. I have seen her old invalid sister cry. She was scared of her. The old sister told me the only time we had any freedom was when we were by ourselves-but she was never herself when Mrs. Littleton was around. I know of food and groceries being taken to Pella. I helped pack the groceries. I have known of chicken, eggs, butter and canned stuff on more than one occasion. I helped to put it in the car Mrs. Littleton drove. She was going to Pella. That has happened lots of times."

...