Massie v. Massie
| Decision Date | 19 October 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 37475.,37475. |
| Citation | 202 Iowa 1311,210 N.W. 431 |
| Parties | MASSIE v. MASSIE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; F. M. Hunter, Judge.
Action for a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The district court awarded plaintiff a divorce on the grounds alleged and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Jacques, Tisdale & Jacques and L. L. Duke, all of Ottumwa, for appellant.
Jones & White, of Ottumwa, for appellee.
[1] There are some underlying principles in cases of this kind which have been well settled by this court. We have said that there may be cruel and inhuman treatment such as to endanger life, without any physical violence. Doolittle v. Doolittle, 78 Iowa, 691, 43 N. W. 616, 6 L. R. A. 187;Hullinger v. Hullinger, 133 Iowa, 269, 110 N. W. 470;Rader v. Rader, 136 Iowa, 223, 113 N. W. 817;Hickman v. Hickman, 188 Iowa, 697, 176 N. W. 698, 14 A. L. R. 929;Anderson v. Anderson, 189 Iowa, 95, 174 N. W. 665, 177 N. W. 712;Dabelstein v. Dabelstein, 191 Iowa, 808, 183 N. W. 385;Inman v. Inman, 196 Iowa, 845, 195 N. W. 583.
[2] Also that unwarranted charges and accusations of unchastity constitute cruel and inhuman treatment and are sufficient to justify the granting of a divorce. Turner v. Turner, 122 Iowa, 113, 97 N. W. 997;Martin v. Martin, 150 Iowa, 223, 129 N. W. 816;Butts v. Butts, 185 Iowa, 954, 171 N. W. 295;Meyer v. Meyer, 187 Iowa, 617, 174 N. W. 356; Anderson v. Anderson, supra; Shaffer v. Shaffer (Iowa) 181 N. W. 261.
[3] Also that the use of violent threats toward a cultured, refined woman of frail health is sufficient cruel and inhuman treatment to endanger her life and warrant granting of a divorce. Wheeler v. Wheeler, 53 Iowa, 511, 5 N. W. 689, 36 Am. Rep. 240;Douglass v. Douglass, 81 Iowa, 258, 47 N. W. 92;Shook v. Shook, 114 Iowa, 593, 87 N. W. 680;Berry v. Berry, 115 Iowa, 543, 88 N. W. 1075.
[4] In cases of this kind, although being in equity and triable de novo here, in the presence of a serious conflict in the testimony, we are disposed to give serious consideration to the decision of the trial court in determining final disposition of the case here. Berry v. Berry, supra; Rader v. Rader, supra; Pooley v. Pooley, 178 Iowa, 19, 157 N. W. 129;Lewis v. Lewis, 197 Iowa, 703, 197 N. W. 907;Rust v. Trapp (Iowa) 201 N. W. 565.
[5] We have also held that in actions of this kind the two elements are of equal importance, to wit, cruel and inhuman treatment, which must be of that character as to endanger the life of the applicant. Hill v. Hill (Iowa) 208 N. W. 377.
[6] It is equally true that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish her claim herein by a preponderance of the evidence. Harm might be done to the parties in this case, and little good would come to the profession by a detailed recitation of the facts established in this case. Sixteen days were taken in the trial of the case, and the abstract and amendments presented to us consist of something over 650 pages.
Each action of this kind must rest wholly on the particular facts developed under the evidence in the case, and in such matters precedents are of little value. We will not attempt to summarize this record thoroughly, but in a sketchy way refer to some of the high points in the testimony.
Plaintiff and defendant, in their youthful days, resided in the same town in Illinois, became acquainted, and kept company for some time, and probably each was, to a certain extent, infatuated with the other, but the defendant moved from this Illinois town, and the romance did not materialize. Later the plaintiff married a man by the name of Harding, and, after living with him for a short time, divorced him, and later married one Wallace by name, and went to St. Paul to live. They were married for 17 years, and, under the recited facts, she was warranted in leaving him when she did. He gave her money and securities to the amount of $50,000, and she moved to California. He later obtained a divorce from her by default on the ground of desertion. Plaintiff and defendant had met but two or three times while she was the wife of Harding and Wallace. Defendant, according to his story, was ever in love with this woman since he first met her. He never married, and he attempted on several occasions to keep track of her. In the summer of 1921, some correspondence and telegrams passed between these parties. It is probable, under the evidence, that she made the first advances. By arrangement, they met in Des Moines where he was then living. They met, the old flame of romance was fanned, and resulted in their marriage a few days later. The defendant was an employee of the federal government and drew a salary of something like $1,740 a year and expenses. Up to this time he had practically not accumulated anything. He had a few hundred dollars in the bank which he says he spent for the honeymoon trip. On the other hand, she says she paid the expenses of this trip. They took apartments in Des Moines, bought furniture on the installment plan, and started housekeeping. A bank account was opened in one of the city banks in her name. Whatever funds the plaintiff had on hand, together with his monthly pay checks as they came in from the government, were deposited in this bank account. She drew all the checks on the account, and, when necessary, furnished him bank checks, signed by her, to the end that he might draw funds from said account. There seems to have been no rift in their happiness during their stay in Des Moines. She had one operation while she was in Des Moines and was in the hospital several days. She had had two or three operations in years previous, and seems to have been a woman of rather delicate health. The evidence quite satisfactorily shows that she was a woman of refinement and culture, and had, during most of the years of her life, been associated with high-class people. He had an aspiration to retire to a farm, and, on talking it over with a friend one night in her presence, she suggested that they buy a farm and move onto it. They finally bought a 200-acre farm in Greene township, Wapello county, Iowa, at a price of $10,000; $1,000 was paid down on the signing of the contract, which was signed by both parties, $1,000 was paid the 1st of the next March, and the deferred payments of $8,000 were taken care of by a mortgage on the farm. They moved to this farm about March 1, 1922.
At this point there is a dispute between the parties, the defendant claiming that he had an agreement with his wife that she was to put in her money, against which he would put in his time in the occupation and carrying on of this farm, and that it was to be a fifty-fifty proposition; that is, that later the farm was to be sold and the profits divided between them half and half. He further claims that payments being made on the farm from the bank account, as hereinbefore recited, warranted a conclusion that at least a part of his salary went into the purchase price of said farm. This matter will be given attention later in the opinion. They moved their furniture to the farm and made improvements thereon. The bank account was transferred to Ottumwa, still continuing in her name, and all checks drawn on the bank account were signed by her. The buildings on the farm were improved and some new buildings constructed. Shortly after they moved to the farm, having no children, they took a girl, by the name of Florence Bloomfield, from the Soldiers' Orphans' Home at Davenport, and later they also took into their family another orphan, a brother of the girl named above, he being known in the record as Charles Bloomfield. It is at this point that the difficulties arose upon which this action is based, and the record history of their life on the farm contains a recitation of the usual trials and tribulations incident to married life. Disagreements arose between them about various matters, and the defendant, according to the record, was a man of excitable temperament and easily angered, and was given, in some instances, to very bitter sarcasm. Some disagreements arose between them as to the children, which resulted later in returning these children to the orphans' home. While it is a disputed question in the record, he flatly denying, the weight of the evidence, however, shows that on various occasions, some of them in the presence of the children, he accused this woman of immorality, of being a whore, and also insisted that “she had nigger blood in her family.” On various occasions he swore at her or in her presence, struck the boy with his fist and knocked him down, and it would seem that on these occasions he had no control or restraint over himself whatever. She was attempting on one occasion to teach the little girl the Bible story of the Resurrection of Christ, and he ridiculed her in her efforts. It is to be said here in passing that she was a Spiritualist in belief, a fact,...
To continue reading
Request your trial