Mullen v. Mullen
| Decision Date | 22 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,972 - (117) |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 494,135 Minn. 179 |
| Parties | ANNA MAY MULLEN v. FRANK A. MULLEN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action of divorce in the district court for Ramsey county. Defendant's motion for a change of venue to Stevens county was denied, Hanft, J. The case was tried before Michael, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant's motion to amend the conclusions of law and order for judgment or for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Change of venue.
1. In refusing a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses the trial court did not exceed its discretion.
Divorce -- findings -- evidence.
2. The evidence will not justify this court in holding that the findings are unsupported thereby, and the findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment.
Baldwin & Murphy, for appellant.
O'Brien, Young & Stone, for respondent.
The trial court granted plaintiff a divorce from defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and defendant appeals from the judgment.
He contends: (1) That the court erred in refusing a change of venue; (2) that the evidence fails to establish the charge of cruelty; and (3) that the findings of fact do not justify the conclusions of law.
During their married life the parties resided at Morris in Stevens county. When plaintiff left the family home she removed to St. Paul and thereafter brought her action in Ramsey county. Defendant made a motion for a change of venue to Stevens county on the ground of convenience of witnesses and presented affidavits in support thereof. Plaintiff presented affidavits in opposition thereto. The summons and complaint were served on August 12, 1915. The motion was brought on for hearing on October 2, two days before the opening of the Stevens county term of court, and if granted would have postponed the trial of the case until the March term in that county. The court denied the motion. The determination of such questions rests in the judicial discretion of the trial court, and no abuse of such discretion is shown.
Plaintiff bases her charge of cruelty upon an unvarying course of ill treatment persisted in for years by defendant, and not upon specific acts of violence committed by him. Soon after the marriage he began complaining about the household expenses and demanded that they be cut down. It seems that, instead of furnishing plaintiff money for such expenses, defendant arranged for her to order necessary supplies from the stores and that the trouble between them had its origin in his habit of berating her for the expense whenever a bill came in. The testimony makes a fair-sized volume, and we shall not attempt to recapitulate or summarize it. The trial court accepted plaintiff's account of defendant's conduct as correct, and to indicate the manner in which he treated her we give a few incidents taken from her testimony. Because she wrote frequently to her mother and brother, defendant refused in an ill-natured manner to let her have money for postage, saying it took lots of money to mail letters and there was no sense in sending so many. Asked as to defendant's attitude toward her when she was doing her own housework before the birth of one of her children plaintiff answered: "I was very ill in the first part of the summer and remember I tried very hard to do my work and to keep up, and Mr. Mullen was always very angry with me if the meals were not just ready the minute he walked in the house, and he used to turn and go down to the restaurant or hotel if I didn't have them ready." Defendant's brother had married plaintiff's sister. Her sister died and plaintiff attended the funeral. She states: "I brought the two little children of his brother and my sister back and he was so angry, he said he had enough to do to keep up his own family, and I didn't know what to do with them." She subsequently took them to her mother. When plaintiff was sick abed and had a niece come to stay with her, defendant found fault with her on account of the expense for the girl's board. When plaintiff procured false teeth, defendant said such expense must be cut out, she was not worth it. When she procured a pair of new shoes for the oldest child to wear at his confirmation, she says defendant was very angry, "and he even took up a shoe and struck me with it right before my two boys, and called me everything, -- old lazy thing, if I earned the money I would know how hard it was." When he found a bill for some electric light bulbs and another for some dental work she states...
To continue reading
Request your trial