Raney v. Raney

Decision Date17 December 1907
Citation106 S.W. 577,128 Mo. App. 167
PartiesRANEY v. RANEY.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by Virginia C. Raney against George W. Raney. From a judgment dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jos. S. McIntyre, for appellant.

BLAND, P. J.

The action is for divorce. Omitting caption, the petition is as follows: "Now comes the plaintiff, and for her cause of action states that she was lawfully married to the defendant, George W. Raney, at the city of St. Louis, and in the state of Missouri, on the 17th day of October, 1905, and continued to live with defendant as his lawful wife from and after the date of said marriage until the 6th day of February, 1907, when plaintiff and defendant separated. Plaintiff further states that after said separation she filed suit for divorce in this court, but that shortly thereafter, at the earnest solicitation of defendant, and relying on defendant's promise to treat plaintiff kindly and to conduct himself properly as her husband, she dismissed said suit, and returned to defendant and lived with him as his wife until the ____ day of May, 1907, when, on account of renewed indignities and mistreatment of her by defendant, she again separated from the defendant, and at no time since said separation on said ____ day of May, 1907, has she lived with defendant as his wife. Plaintiff further states that at all times since her marriage to defendant she has borne herself toward defendant as a true and faithful wife and performed her duties as such, and treated him at all times with kindness and affection, but that defendant wholly disregarded his duties as the husband of this plaintiff, and has almost continuously since the day of their marriage offered her such indignities in his demeanor, acts, and conduct as to render her condition intolerable, in this, to wit, that defendant is possessed of a violent temper which he neither controls nor attempts to control, and that, beginning with the month of November, 1905, following their said marriage in October, defendant began to abuse plaintiff, to quarrel at her, and to treat her with contempt and incivility, which treatment he has continued from time to time up to the time of their said separation on the ____ day of May, 1907; that repeatedly during their married life defendant applied to plaintiff vile and indecent epithets, and spoke to plaintiff in this language, `You are a fool and a damned old crank'; that he frequently ordered plaintiff to leave her own home, and told her that he did not want to live with her and did not want to see her; that during the months of January and February, 1907, defendant repeatedly threatened to leave plaintiff, and said that he did not want to live with her; that he would not be worried with her for all the property that she had, and quarreled with her almost daily and abused her in vile language in the presence of friends and neighbors, to her great mortification and humiliation; that at all times since the date of their said marriage plaintiff has furnished defendant with a good home and all the comforts of life, and at all times furnished him with spending money and in every way paid all the expenses of herself and this defendant, and that at no time has defendant made any effort to go into business or earn money in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dunn v. Dunn
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1948
    ...Mo. App., 183 S.W. 2d 560; Needham v. Needham, Mo. App., 299 S.W. 832; Alfree v. Alfree, 175 Mo.App. 344, 162 S.W. 650; Raney v. Raney, 128 Mo.App. 167, 106 S.W. 577; Morris v. Morris, 60 Mo.App. 86. However, since the defendant is admittedly insane the sufficiency of the evidence must be e......
  • Dunn v. Dunn
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1948
    ...the mandatory duty of the Court to grant plaintiff a decree of divorce. Fisher v. Fisher, 54 W. Va. 146, 46 S.E. 118, 119; Raney v. Raney, 128 Mo. App. 167, 172; Deschodt v. Deschodt, 59 Mo. App. 102, 105; Morris v. Morris, 60 Mo. App. 86; Needham v. Needham, 299 S.W. Herman D. Olian for re......
  • Shawver v. Shawver
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 3, 1913
    ...... proved her case by a preponderance of the evidence. (Wald. v. Wald, 119 Mo.App. 341, 96 S.W. 302; Raney v. Raney, 128 Mo.App. 167, 106 S.W. 577; Orton v. Orton, 159 Mich. 236, 134 Am. St. 716, 123 N.W. 1103, 26. L. R. A., N. S., 276; Spitsnaugle v. ......
  • French v. Pettingill
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 17, 1907
  • 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