Patterson v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 10 January 1907
• Parties: PATTERSON v. PATTERSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

88 P. 196

45 Wash. 296

PATTERSON v. PATTERSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 10, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Miles Poindexter, Judge.

Suit by Robert Patterson against Elizabeth C. Patterson for divorce. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter decree for plaintiff.

Richardson Roche & Onstine, for appellant.

ROOT J.

This proceeding was instituted by plaintiff for divorce from defendant on the ground of 'abandonment for one year.' Defendant was served by publication, made no appearance, and default was taken against her. At the trial the prosecuting attorney defended the action. From the judgment of dismissal the plaintiff appeals.

In February, 1892, appellant, who was then 64 years of age, and respondent, who was past 50, intermarried and lived together in Spokane until the fall of 1894, when they moved to the appellant's farm near Plaza, in Spokane county, where they lived until July 1, 1895. During the months of June and July, 1895, appellant was obliged to serve on a jury at Spokane, and during his absence respondent, without his knowledge, abandoned him, and went to live with her son in California, and has continued to live there ever since. Plaintiff and his wife had no trouble at or prior to the time she abandoned him. She did not tell him she was going to leave him, and he gave her no cause for so doing. Appellant provided a good home for respondent on their farm. They had no trouble of any consequence. The only reasons appellant could give for her leaving him was that she was unfriendly with his grown children, who lived in the neighborhood, and she had a 'war of words,' or quarrel, with one of them, so they would have nothing to do with her; that she did not like the climate of Washington as well as California, and appellant thought she did not care much for him, and preferred to live with her son. She abandoned and has remained away from him for a period of over ten years. She wrote him about once every six months during the first six or seven years after she abandoned him, and he replied to her letters. She never asked him to come to California, and frequently wrote him that she would not live with him in Washington. He was always willing to take her back as his wife, but never urged her to return. After she had abandoned him for a period of about seven years, while appellant was going through California, he stopped to see her and had a talk with her, and during their conversation some of their troubles came up, and she stated she would never live with him in Washington. About three weeks after this time, she wrote him a letter in which she said it was her wish to never see him again, and, in reply to her letter, he wrote her that if they ever met again, it would be an accident on his part. He has never seen her since three years ago in California, although she wrote him after he started the action for a divorce, acknowledging receipt of a copy of the summons by mail, and requesting him to let her know what the decision of the court was, and saying in the letter that she would not appear, and was willing for him to get a divorce. He had no agreement or understanding with her that she would not defend the action, and she did not know he was going to start the action for divorce, until after he had served the papers upon her.

The trial court made findings, among which were the following '(5) That the said plaintiff and said defendant lived together for three years after their marriage in 1892, part of the time in Spokane, and part of the time near Plaza. During the time they lived in Spokane there was no trouble. When they went out to Plaza, it seems the plaintiff had a number of grown children, and they made trouble with his wife. Plaintiff testified that they had, as he expressed, a 'war of words' whenever they came together, and that she objected to live there on that account, and the court finds that she probably had good cause so to do. (6) It appears from the evidence that there was a tacit understanding between the plaintiff and defendant that she should go to California, and that he never attempted to have her return. (7) About seven years after her going to California the plaintiff was going through San Francisco on some other business, and casually called around to see...