Parsons v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 07 May 1901
• Citation: 62 S.W. 719
• Parties: PARSONS v. PARSONS. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

62 S.W. 719

PARSONS v. PARSONS. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 7, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Daviess county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Maria L. Parsons against Edward Parsons for divorce and alimony. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wilfred Carico, for appellant.

Miller & Todd, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Appellee Maria L. Parsons, filed this suit against appellant, Edward Parsons, on February 11, 1898, seeking an absolute divorce from him, with costs, alimony, and maintenance; also the custody of their two infant children. She alleged that he was of profligate habits and was wasting his estate; that he had threatened to sell his property, and was about to do so, with the fraudulent intent of preventing her from securing a support for herself and infant children. The grounds for divorce were abandonment cruelty and inhuman treatment, indicating a settled aversion to her; threats to cut her throat, burn her property, and personal danger to her. The defendant controverted the allegations of the petition, and pleaded the written agreement made on April 1, 1896, by which a suit for divorce then pending was settled, and the property rights between them adjusted. By her reply the wife alleged that this contract was obtained by fraud, and was signed by her in ignorance of her rights, and that it was against public policy and void. The allegations of the reply were denied by a rejoinder, which completed the issue. Proof was taken by the plaintiff. The defendant took none. The case was then submitted, and the court adjudged the wife a divorce, and also the custody of the two children, sustained the attachment, and made an allowance to her of $500 to be paid in five years, in semiannual installments of $50. He also adjudged the costs against the husband, including an allowance of $100 to her attorneys, which was conceded to be a reasonable fee for them. Appellant superseded this judgment, and insists that the evidence did not warrant it.

The main question in the case arises out of the written contract above referred to. The proof shows that the wife was a widow with three children when she married appellant. She had a farm of about 38 acres, on which she resided, worth about $60 an acre, and $2,000, which she had received from the insurance on the life of her deceased husband. There was a lien of $1,200 on the farm. The husband had no means. There was a coal bank on the farm. He opened this, and sold a good deal of coal from it. He also cultivated the farm. The wife's three boys worked with him. From the proceeds of the farm and the coal bank the husband bought another small farm and some town lots in Owensboro, worth, perhaps, $1,500 or $2,000. The title to these he took to himself, although from the evidence, it would appear that the wife understood the title was to be taken to them jointly. Two children were born to them, a boy and a girl, 13 and 11 years old respectively, at the time the proof was taken. They got along badly for some years before they separated. The wife's farm was in good condition at their marriage, but in bad condition when they separated; and from the proof it might be inferred that the husband skinned the place after the troubles began, and in order to pay for the other property which he had put in his own name, though the proof on this point is meager. The husband's habits were bad, and his conduct towards his wife indefensible. Things finally culminated in a divorce suit brought by her in 1896, which was settled by the following written contract: "This agreement, made this April 1st, 1896, by and between Edward Parsons and Maria L. Parsons, who are husband and wife, witnesseth: That whereas, the said Maria L. Parsons has heretofore instituted a suit in the Daviess circuit court against the said Edward for divorce, and by agreement of said parties said suit has been ordered to be...