Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 37240

Decision Date17 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. 37240,37240
Citation171 N.W.2d 243,184 Neb. 687
PartiesMaryruth PARKHURST, Appellee, v. Garnett S. PARKHURST, Appellant.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. Assignments of error relied upon for reversal and intended to be urged in the brief shall be separately numbered and paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the cause will be limited to errors assigned and discussed.

2. A rule by which to measure the exact amount or degree of corroboration required in a divorce case has not been formulated. The sufficiency or insufficiency of corroboration must be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case.

3. Actions in equity on appeal to this court are triable de novo, subject, however, to the rule that when credible evidence on material questions of fact is in irreconcilable conflict this court will, in determining the weight of the evidence, consider the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses and their manner of testifying, and must have accepted one version of the facts rather than the opposite.

Harry E. Stevens, Fremont, for appellant.

Yost & Yost, Nicholas J. Lamme, Fremont, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.

SPENCER, Justice.

This is an action for divorce brought by Maryruth Parkhurst against Garnett S. Parkhurst on the grounds of extreme cruelty. The trial court granted plaintiff an absolute divorce and divided the property of the parties, subject to encumbrances. Defendant perfected this appeal.

The parties were married May 18, 1943, and have one son who has attained his majority. The marital home of the parties was in Fremont, Nebraska. Plaintiff has been gainfully employed during the entire marriage except for the period of her pregnancy. For the last several years she has been employed at the Hormel Packing Company. Defendant has been employed or in business during the marriage except for a period of less than a year. For the last 5 years he has been operating a laundromat and dry cleaning business in Wahoo, Nebraska. The downpayment for the purchase of the business was made with plaintiff's inheritance from her mother.

We limit our consideration to the assignments of error covering sufficiency of the evidence, corroboration, and condonation. Defendant also attacked the division of the property in his brief, but neglected to include it in his assignments of error. It will not be considered herein in accordance with Rule 8, subd. a, par. 2(3), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967, which so far as material herein is as follows: 'Assignments of error relied upon for reversal and intended to be urged in the brief shall be separately numbered and paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the cause will be limited to errors assigned and discussed.'

Plaintiff testified that defendant had a violent temper and continually struck her, the last occasion being when he broke some furniture and dishes during the evening meal about a week before the separation. She also testified that she went to Columbus, Nebraska, the last Friday in April to check on defendant's alleged girl friend, and found defendant's car parked in front of the house. She testified defendant was in the house approximately 2 1/2 hours. While defendant insisted it was a business call and denied any impropriety on this occasion, there is a modicum of corroboration of plaintiff's testimony in the defendant's version of the event. Plaintiff returned to Fremont, picked up some clothes, and left the home of the parties. She remained away for 3 weeks and when she returned she refused to live with the defendant.

After the divorce action was filed, defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Marquardt v. Nehawka Farmers Co-op. Co.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1971
    ...those assignments of error properly presented and argued. Rule 8-a2(2)(3), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967; Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 184 Neb. 687, 171 N.W.2d 243. The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in overruling the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict made at th......
  • Lincoln County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n, Local 546, Intern. Broth. of Police Officers v. Lincoln County
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1984
    ...error relied upon for reversal must be separately stated in concise language. See, Neb.Ct.R. 9D(1)d (Rev.1982); Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 184 Neb. 687, 171 N.W.2d 243 (1969). Additionally, however, we have reviewed both the evidence presented by the County and the argument made by counsel wit......
  • Marfisi v. Spagnola, 40745
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1976
    ...have accepted one version of facts rather than the opposite. Pinney v. Hill, 191 Neb. 844, 218 N.W.2d 212 (1974); Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 184 Neb. 687, 171 N.W.2d 243 (1969). The sole factual determination presented in this case is whether or not the plaintiff did knowingly and willfully ex......
  • Hutchinson v. Hutchinson
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1970
    ...the witnesses and their manner of testifying and must have accepted one version of the facts rather than the other. Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 184 Neb. 687, 171 N.W.2d 243. Under the circumstances reflected by this record, the property division made by the district court was proper. The decree......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT