Revercomb v. Revercomb

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Trimble
• Citation: Revercomb v. Revercomb, 222 S.W. 899 (Mo. App. 1920)
• Decision Date: 14 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13416.,13416.
• Parties: REVERCOMB v. REVERCOMB.

222 S.W. 899

REVERCOMB v. REVERCOMB.

No. 13416.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 14, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Schuyler County; N. M. Pettingill, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit for divorce by Otha Revercomb against Alice Revercomb. From decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Harry J. Libby, of Shelbina, for appellant. Higbee & Mills, of Kirksville, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Herein a husband sues for divorce on the ground that his wife has been guilty of such indignities as to render his condition intolerable. The wife files no cross-bill and asks no affirmative relief, but does file an answer admitting the marriage and the settlement of the property rights as alleged in the petition, but denies everything else and contests the suit. The trial court granted plaintiff a divorce as prayed, whereupon defendant appealed, and the question for our determination is whether plaintiff is entitled to a divorce.

The parties were married in Shelby county September 17, 1904, he being then 23 and she 20 years of age. At that time she was in perfect health and had been so all her life. Each was reared on a farm within five miles of one another, and their courtship had extended over a period of five years. They were poor, the husband having only a horse and a cow and the wife a horse, cow, and $50 in money. They were ambitious, industrious young people, and both worked and strove to get along in the world, the husband seeking to educate himself, and the wife striving with all her energy to help him in every way she could. The first six months of their married life they lived on the farm at his mother's home. In March, 1905, the couple went to Chillicothe where the husband enrolled as a student in the Chillicothe Normal and Business School' and they rented rooms and did "light housekeeping." In June or July following the husband became sick, and on that account the young couple returned to his mother's home. They stayed there until in December, when they moved to an adjoining farm which plaintiff had purchased in the October preceding. Here they lived for two years, during one of which plaintiff farmed, and the other he taught the district school. From this farm they moved in the fall of 1907 to a Mr. Michaels' farm in Marion county, where they lived till February, 1908, the husband teaching school. They then moved to Lakenan, Mo., and lived there two years; from there they went to Hunnewell, where they resided two years; and from there they went to Sturgeon in the fall of 1913. They lived there during the school term for three years and part of the fourth, or until the last of February, 1917, which is an important date, as will hereinafter appear. The parties seem to have striven with a mutual ambition to be economical and save for a home and for the husband's education. This latter aim they appear to have pursued successfully, for during the vacation periods the husband attended the Normal School at Chillicothe and Kirksville and was for a time in Chicago University ; and he is at the present time, or was at the time of the trial, teaching mathematics in one of the higher schools of the state.

Except for the time they lived with plaintiff's mother, and for a while at Sturgeon when they were waiting for their household goods to arrive, and for a time after said household effects were destroyed by a fire, the couple kept house, the wife doing all the work thereof, and keeping matters neat and tidy, except during periods of illness which will shortly be mentioned. The witnesses describe the wife as being a good housewife, keeping her home in order, attentive to her domestic duties, economical, industrious, quiet, and retiring in disposition, and apparently devoted to her husband. When they lived at Hunnewell, she taught as one of the teachers in the grade school, receiving the munificent sum of $30 or $35 per month, which, with the exception of one month's warrant which she used to buy clothes, was deposited to her husband's account.

In the spring of 1916 the house in which they lived at Sturgeon was destroyed by fire and their household goods were burned. A part of these goods had been procured by the wife in "taking orders," which we interpret to mean selling something on a commission. These household goods were insured for $1,200.

Unfortunately, whenever the wife became pregnant she was affected with such violent and continued vomiting that, in order to keep her from dying, physicians were compelled to perform operations on her to relieve the womb of its contents. She seems to have been anxious to have children, but each time she became pregnant the results were as above stated, and five times an operation was performed on her, of which two produced the most serious effects, once in November, 1914, and once thereafter while they lived at Sturgeon. At these times she was rendered very ill, exceedingly so in November, 1914, and even on the last occasion she was confined to her bed for some weeks. The evidence of the physician who treated her during one of these times is that the effect of such disturbance upon the nervous system is one of extreme depression, and that it might or could produce delirium, though he did not notice that she was delirious at the times he waited on her. These abortions, however, produced a marked and lasting effect upon her health. When finally it became certain that it was impossible for her to bear children, she besought her husband to permit her to adopt a child, and this seems to have been agreed upon but was never done.

On account of the wife's health the husband did not want her to teach any more, so when they left Sturgeon for the summer vacation of their second year there the wife did not attend the Normal summer session with her husband, as formerly, but went to stay at her father's while he attended school; the intention being that she could finish her training after he had completed his educational course. They returned to Sturgeon for the school year of 1915-16 and kept house as before. As heretofore stated, the household goods were destroyed by fire in the spring of 1916, and when the parties returned to Sturgeon that fall they boarded for about three weeks at the hotel. The wife says that at this time the husband thought it would be less expensive if she would return to her father's, and she did so. She says that a short while before Christmas of 1916 the husband wrote her that, owing to some gossip concerning him and a woman in Sturgeon, he thought it best for her to come back in order to stop the gossip. She did so, and they got a house and set up a household. They lived thus until in February 1917, when, according to the wife's version, the husband again decided it was cheaper to board; and, as they were planning to go to school together the following year, he suggested that she go to her father's and raise a garden and put up fruit in order to lessen living expenses. (The petition alleges that the separation took place in February, 1917, and the husband testified that they separated at that time, and denied that he suggested she go to her father's to save expenses and to can fruit.) The wife, however, did go to her father's, and she says she put up a large quantity of canned goods, intended for their use the next year when they would be in school together. It is conceded that when the wife left Sturgeon in February, 1917, the husband did not tell her he was going to separate from her. She says she had no idea he was going to do so. He says she knew it as well as he did, but just how she knew it is not disclosed. He says they quarreled and their parting was not pleasant. He admits he wrote to her thereafter and sent her $5 a month, and on her birthday, May 30, 1917, sent her $5 additional as a birthday present.

In March, 1917, the husband was attacked with appendicitis and went to the hospital in Kirksville to be operated on. He did not notify his wife until a week after the operation was performed, when he had a man friend, a fellow school-teacher, to write her he was doing nicely, getting along all right, would he able to come home in a few days, and that she "should not come on account of the expense." While the husband admits he had the letter written, he attempts, in a way, to deny that he directed her not to come. But the letter was introduced in evidence showing that this direction was in it, the friend who wrote it testified he sent it, and the wife did get it, and the husband, on cross-examination, when asked if he did not tell his friend to write his wife not to come on account of expense, answered, "I am not sure, on account of expenses; I might have said there was no need of it." When pressed if he did not say to tell his wife she ought not to come on account of expense, he said, "I am not sure; it wasn't necessary." We regard it as clear that he did direct her not to come. She had no money of her own, and because of this letter advising her not to come she did not go to him, but wrote.

After he recovered from the operation, he, some time in May, 1917, or near that, went to his mother's and had her to telephone his wife he was there. She came and stayed all night with him, and the next morning took him to the train so that he could return to his work. On the way to the station, and while waiting for the train, they planned their work in school together during the coming winter, and thereafter he continued to send her money until the fall of that year, 1917. The first the wife knew of any intended separation was when she received a letter, dated October 27, 1917, from a firm of Kirksville lawyers, telling her they had been consulted by her husband with reference to procuring a divorce and asking that a meeting be had to discuss a property settlement.

Upon receipt of this letter the wife called her husband, who was at Kirksville, over the phone, and wanted him to come to her, but he said he was sick, and...