Ross v. Ross
| Decision Date | 15 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 38124 |
| Citation | 216 N.W. 22,205 Iowa 424 |
| Parties | LUCILLE ROSS, Appellant, v. RUSSELL O. ROSS et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 17, 1928.
Appeal from Polk District Court.--W. G. BONNER, Judge.
Action for a divorce and to quiet title. Defendant filed a cross-petition. Robert Ross intervened, and claimed title to the property, and asked that it be quieted in him. The district court dismissed plaintiff's petition, and she appeals. It also dismissed defendant's cross-petition but he does not appeal. The court found in favor of the intervener, and quieted title to the property in him.
Affirmed.
Chester J. Eller, for appellant.
A. L Yeaton and C. S. Cooter, for appellees.
ALBERT, J. EVANS, C. J., and DE GRAFF, MORLING, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.
Just how these two actions can be joined, we do not quite understand; but, as no objection is made thereto, we proceed to treat the two cases submitted.
Lucille Ross and Russell O. Ross were married on July 3, 1922. As a result of such marriage, one child was born, a boy, whose age was about seven months at the time the petition herein was filed. The claim of the plaintiff is that defendant was guilty of such cruel and inhuman treatment as to endanger her life; and in his cross-petition he claims that plaintiff's behavior and conduct were such as to endanger his health,--that plaintiff was possessed of an uncontrollable temper, and was guilty of using vile language; and he asks that he have a divorce and the custody of the child.
As is usual in such cases, the matter involved in this part of the case resolves itself only into a fact question. The law governing actions of this kind is too well settled to demand extended citation of our cases on the propositions involved. We have stated that it is not sufficient ground for granting a divorce that the defendant has been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, but the evidence must go further, and show that it was such as would endanger the life of the complaining spouse. This question was quite fully reviewed in Hill v. Hill, 201 Iowa 864, 208 N.W. 377.
It is provided by statute, Section 10474, Code of 1924, that no divorce shall be granted on the testimony of the plaintiff alone. In other words, the plaintiff's testimony must be corroborated. No good could be accomplished by setting out in full the marital difficulties of these parties. What is set out is simply a summary of the testimony and our conclusions in relation thereto.
These parties were students at the agricultural college at Ames in 1920, defendant taking an engineering, and plaintiff a domestic science, course. Their courtship ran the usual course, until defendant graduated, in the spring of 1922. In the intermediate time, she had visited at his home in Akron, Iowa.
They started housekeeping on the property involved in this litigation. He had employment at the time, and earned about $ 100 a month. His father furnished him about $ 1,100, to furnish the house in question. The echoes of the marriage vows had scarcely ceased before the family troubles of these parties began. She testified that he was guilty of indifference, had no love for her, and treated her more as a servant in the house than as a spouse; that he neglected her, and was lazy, and would not work, and finally lost his job; that he refused to accompany her to places she desired to go; that he became involved in indebtedness for family necessities, and after he lost his position in Des Moines, he went to Akron, the home of his parents, stating that he would be back in a short time; that he constantly nagged at her, and nothing she did ever pleased him; that he showed no affection or kindness toward her; that, at the time of her accouchement in the hospital, he did not come to see her until requested; that he showed no affection or sympathy for her under the circumstances, and all he did was scold about the expense; that she was in the hospital about two weeks, and was then taken to her father's home, and was ill and under the doctor's care for a long time thereafter; that her husband paid no attention to her, except at one time, when he was notified of her condition and came down to see her, stayed a few days, and went back; that he wrote to her, saying that she was a burden, and discharged her nurse because he stated he could not pay her. The correspondence between them up to this time seems to have been casual, and about every two weeks, letters passed back and forth. She testified that, when he came and called upon her on this occasion, he did not inquire how she was, or sympathize with her in any way; that he came down in the fall, and stated that he was going to rent the house and sell some of the furniture to pay his bills; that he did not pay any bills, however, but went back to Akron, and never wrote to her after September, 1925; that she was then living with her parents; that she took part of the furniture out of the house, leaving the rest there for a tenant; that this tenant stayed only about three months, and she rented the house thereafter, and collected the rent. One incident in their early married life when she says he slapped her is corroborated, and one other witness who visited them in 1923 testifies that the husband kept "teasing and tormenting his wife, and kept her on edge and nervous all the time." There is nothing in the record to show that, since the illness above referred to, her health has been other than good. Her father testifies that he was a frequent visitor at her home, and that the husband found fault with her and they quarreled about everything. He further says that, during the time. Russell did not support her in the manner that she was used to being supported; that he bought her clothes and furnished her money all the time she was married. Later, the defendant, his father, and plaintiff's father had a meeting at an attorney's office in Des Moines, relative to this situation. Defendant's father agreed to guarantee to plaintiff $ 35 a month for a year. Defendant sent her money, from time to time, which was used to pay hospital bills and other expenses, and she had only about $ 140 for her own use. On the other hand, defendant's testimony tends to show that the relations between husband and wife were not amicable, to say the least. According to defendant's evidence, the first serious trouble was when they went to purchase furniture. He claimed that plaintiff wanted to buy the most expensive furniture she could get, and spend the $ 800 which his father had given him for three or four pieces of furniture. He says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial