Richardson v. Stowe

Decision Date01 December 1890
Citation14 S.W. 810,102 Mo. 33
PartiesRICHARDSON et al. v. STOWE et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Macon county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

Dysart & Mitchell and John F. Williams, for appellants. Sears & Guthrie, for respondents.

BRACE, J.

At the September term, 1883, of the Macon circuit court, the following decree was rendered: "Mattie A. Richardson, Plaintiff, vs. George W. Richardson, Defendant. Now, at this day, this cause came on to be heard, the plaintiff appearing in person and by her attorney, and answering ready for trial. The defendant, although being duly summoned by publication, and duly called, comes not, but makes default; whereupon, this cause is submitted to the court upon the petition of the plaintiff, and the interplea of Clara J. Richardson, and the court, after hearing the evidence adduced, doth find that on the 27th day of November, 1879, the plaintiff was lawfully married to the defendant, and that on the 18th day of October 1880, the defendant willfully deserted the plaintiff, and, without any reasonable cause, abandoned her, and has ever since absented himself from her. That the plaintiff has resided in the state of Missouri one whole year next before the filing of her petition in this cause, and was and is a resident of Macon county, Missouri. Wherefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff be divorced from the bonds of matrimony contracted with the defendant. That the plaintiff be awarded the care and custody of her infant child, James. That the plaintiff have and recover judgment in the sum of fourteen hundred dollars for the support and maintenance of herself and child, and to defray the costs and expenses of this suit. That the same be and is hereby declared a lien upon the real estate in plaintiff's petition described, to-wit: The south half of the south-west quarter of section ten, (10,) and the north-west quarter of section fifteen, (15,) all in township fifty-eight, (58,) range thirteen, (13,) in Macon county, Missouri. That execution issue hereon. It is further ordered and decreed by the court that the interplea of the said Clara J. Richardson be and the same is dismissed." On the 23d of May, 1885, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit in the same court by filing a petition in the following words, omitting the caption:

"Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, state that the said George W. Richardson recently died intestate, and that the said William H. Richardson is his lawful administrator, duly appointed and qualified by the probate court of Macon county. That said George W. Richardson died without children or other descendants, surviving both his father and mother, and that the plaintiffs, Wm. H. Richardson, John B. Richardson, Didama M. Gaines, Louisa J. Jones, and Martha A. James are the brothers and sisters and only heirs of said deceased. That the said George W. Richardson died seised of the following described estate, situate and being in the county of Macon and state of Missouri, to-wit: The south half of the south-west quarter of section ten, (10,) and the northwest quarter of section fifteen, (15,) all in township fifty-eight, (58,) range thirteen, (13,) of the value of three thousand and six hundred dollars, ($3,600,) and over. Plaintiffs further state that heretofore, to-wit, on the 13th day of March, 1883, the defendant Mattie A. Stowe, then falsely and fraudulently claiming to be Mattie A. Richardson, and the wife of said George W. Richardson, filed in this court her petition for divorce, maintenance, and alimony against the said George W. Richardson, wherein she falsely and fraudulently alleged that she was married to said George W. Richardson on the 27th day of November, 1879, in the county of Jackson, and the state of Missouri, and that he had abandoned her, and without cause absented himself from her for more than one whole year, etc., and praying to be divorced from the bonds of matrimony so contracted, and for maintenance and alimony. That notice of said divorce suit was given only by publication in a newspaper published in Macon county, and said Geo. W. Richardson, the defendant in said divorce suit, had no personal service or notice of said suit, and made no appearance thereto. That afterwards, at the September term of the court, 1883, the said defendant, Mattie A. Stowe, plaintiff in said divorce suit, and there falsely and fraudulently pretending to be Mattie A. Richardson, and wife of the said Geo. W. Richardson, took judgment by default against him, the said George W. Richardson, for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony so pretended to have been contracted with him as aforesaid, and falsely and fraudulently procured a judgment to be rendered therein in her favor against the said George W. Richardson for the sum of fourteen hundred dollars, ($1,400,) as for maintenance and alimony, cost and expenses of said divorce suit, and that the same be a charge and lien upon the said real estate. That afterwards, on the 11th day of January, 1884, the said defendant, Mattie A., had and procured said real estate to be sold under an execution issued under said judgment, and the same was knocked off and sold to the said Mattie A., Wm. H. Sears, Ben Eli Guthrie, and John T. Jones for the nominal sum of $800; the latter being her attorneys in said divorce suit. That plaintiffs are informed and believe that said Sears, Guthrie, and Jones had no other or further interest in said property, and the deed executed and delivered by the sheriff, than to secure their fee in said divorce suit, and that said purchase at sheriff's sale was in fact for the sole use and benefit of the plaintiff in said suit; and afterwards, on the 31st day of July, 1884, they released and quitclaimed all their right, title, and interest therein to the defendants, at the nominal sum of $233.35, since which conveyance they have had no interest whatever in said real estate, nor do they claim any. That soon after the purchase of said property by the said Mattie A. at sheriff's sale, as aforesaid, sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Wright v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1942
    ... ... Crow v ... Crow-Humphrey, 335 Mo. 636, 73 S.W.2d 807; Howey v ... Howey, 240 S.W. 450; Richardson v. Stowe, 102 ... Mo. 33; Reger v. Reger, 316 Mo. 1310, 293 S.W. 414; ... Craine v. Deacon, 253 S.W. 1068; Lieber v ... Lieber, 239 Mo. 1, ... ...
  • Wabash Railroad Company v. Mirrielees
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1904
    ...respect. Murphy v. DeFrance, 101 Mo. 151; Payne v. O'Shea, 84 Mo. 129; Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo. 87; Smith v. Simms, 77 Mo. 269; Richardson v. Stowe, 102 Mo. 33; Bates v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 1; Covington v. Chamblin, 156 Mo. 574; Hamilton v. McLean, 139 Mo. 688. (2) The alleged fraud is neithe......
  • Crane v. Deacon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1923
    ...of which it could not have been rendered." This court has applied that doctrine to decrees for divorce. In the case of Richardson v. Stowe, 102 Mo. 33, 14 S. W. 810, a suit to set aside a decree of divorce, it was held that, if the cause of action was vitiated by fraud, it is a defense whic......
  • Hess v. Hess
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1938
    ... ... the decree in the former suit is res adjudicata in ... this suit. [Searcy v. Searcy, supra; Richardson v ... Stowe, 102 Mo. 33, 14 S.W. 810; Johnson v. United ... Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 243 Mo. 278, 147 S.W. 1077; ... Hines v. Hines, 243 Mo. 480, ... ...
  • 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