Sales v. Sales
| Citation | 222 Ky. 175,300 S.W. 354 |
| Parties | SALES v. SALES. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1927 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, Second Division.
Suit by Rosalind H. Sales against Grover G. Sales for a divorce from bed and board, with counterclaim by defendant. From the judgments granting the alimony and dismissing the counterclaim, defendant appeals. Reversed as to alimony, and affirmed.
Peter Lee, Tabb & Krieger, of Louisville, for appellant.
Ben F Ewing, of Louisville, for appellee.
On October 6, 1926, Rosalind H. Sales sued her husband, Grover G. Sales, for divorce from bed and board, alleging cruelty and that on January 3, 1926, he had abandoned her. By answer and counterclaim he denied her allegations of cruelty and charged her with cruelty to him, wherefore he asked for divorce from bed and board. On December 29, 1926, the court gave to each a divorce from bed and board, and awarded her the custody of the children and an allowance of $265 per month alimony. On January 17, 1927, the husband amended his answer and counterclaim and alleged that the abandonment of January 3, 1926, was brought about by the conduct of Mrs. Sales, that such conduct and resulting abandonment had continued since then; and he sought an absolute divorce from her on the ground of abandonment. On March 19, 1927, the court dismissed his counterclaim, and, from that judgment and the former judgment allowing Mrs. Sales $265 per month alimony, he has prosecuted this appeal.
These parties were married on April 14, 1913. Their ages do not appear in the record, but they met while Grover G. Sales was a student at Harvard, and were married in less than two years after his graduation, from which we infer they were both young people of near the same age. They are both members of the Jewish race and of that religious belief. Both are well educated. The husband is a lawyer, and the wife has studied law and contemplated taking up the practice of that profession. So we find them embarking on their married life with every prospect of success and happiness. Happiness failed to follow. They have lived a tempestuous life, and this is the eighth time they have separated. The trial court found and we find that the wreck of this marriage resulted from certain traits of character on the part of Mrs. Sales, and that she was at fault. She felt that she was made of a trifle better clay than he; that she had married beneath herself; and that she was better than her husband's family, and said so in her testimony. She felt that she was more intelligent than he, and frequently told him of these things. He testified that she was constantly berating him and abusing his family; that she called his mother the vilest of names and accused her of running a disorderly house; that when she attended the funeral of Mr. Sales' father, she was so enfuriated by the eulogy pronounced that she said the Rabbi ought to be run out of the temple. She told Mr. Sales that he would never be any good; that a silk purse cannot be made out of a sow's ear, and made other remarks of that ilk. She was of a jealous disposition, and of such Shakespeare says in Othello, act 3, scene 3:
Mr Sales testified that his wife kept him under constant espionage. If some woman client telephoned him, she would accuse him of something wrong. If he left home to go any place, she would telephone to see if he was there. If he went to the drug store and stayed over ten minutes she would accuse him of going some other place. If he was seen with a woman on the streets, she would accuse him of the most awful things. In her saner moments, when friends talked with her about what she was doing, she would admit there was no truth in these accusations. She would say it was just her disposition, and promise to amend, but when next she was aroused, she would reiterate and reaffirm it all. He gave his stenographer a Christmas gift, and they had trouble over that. She made him give an account of every place he went. The suspicion of relations with other women she kept over him all the time. She accused him before his children. She nagged him on this subject all the time. He lived in constant dread. There are in this record letters written by her in which she refers to him as a "jackass" and other such terms. As counsel for one of the departments of the government of the city of Louisville, it became his duty to take steps to close a certain show because of its salacious character, and he did so. About that time he missed a diamond pin, and for two months she accused him of giving it to one of the girls on the stage, until the pin was found in the home. In her tantrums she would threaten to commit suicide, and she staged some scenes in which she pretended to have taken something, and the neighbors were called in. Mr. Sales has only one brother, and if he went to his brother's home, she would accuse him of going to see his brother's wife. Mrs. Sales did not speak to Mr. Sales' mother or his brother, his brother's wife, or to his niece, and so testified, and added that none of them could come into her home. She refused to speak to his friends and to neighbors who treated him courteously. She would go to her husband's office, and go through his files. She would station herself there, and give directions to the stenographers that she would answer the telephone, and she would do so. She so conducted herself that one of Mr. Sales' stenographers left his employment. She would follow him about to see where he went and what he did. There is no need of going further into the evidence. This clearly shows who is to blame. In her evidence, Mrs. Sales admits the truth of most of her husband's testimony. Other parts of it she denies, but denies it in such a way that her denial is not impressive, and her husband's testimony is so supported by other witnesses in the case as to make it credible. Mrs. Sales says that her husband was irritable and nervous. A man kept in terror as he was, could not be otherwise. His home was to him a place of dread and terror, instead of rest and repose, and the close of his day's work meant the renewal of the conflict. Jealousy is a strange thing. It has caused more human...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simonds v. Simonds, 17370
... ... Page 499 ... although a divorce is denied. Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Sections 32.10 and 32.12; Sales v. Sales, 222 Ky. 175, 300 S.W. 354, Bradford v. Bradford, 296 Mass. 187, 4 N.E.2d 1005; Cochrane v. Cochrane, 303 Mass. 467, 22 N.E.2d 6, 138 A.L.R ... ...
-
Simonds v. Simonds, 17166
...maintenance although a divorce is denied. Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Sections 32.10 and 32.12; Sales v. Sales, 222 Ky. 175, 300 S.W. 354; Bradford v. Bradford, 296 Mass. 187, 4 N.E.2d 1005; Cochrane v. Cochrane, 303 Mass. 467, 22 N.E.2d 6, 138 A.L.R. 341. In actio......
-
Machado v. Machado
...maintenance although a divorce is denied. Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Sections 32.10 and 32.12; Sales v. Sales, 222 Ky. 175, 300 S.W. 354; Bradford v. Bradford, 296 Mass. 187, 4 N.E.2d 1005; Cochrane v. Cochrane, 303 Mass. 467, 22 N.E.2d 6, 138 A.L.R. 341. In actio......
-
Frasure v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
...come back. The cause of all this was the man's inordinate jealousy, one human trait of which we had something to say in Sales v. Sales, 222 Ky. 175, 300 S.W. 354, in which we quoted what Solomon said about it, an expression that in some translations reads: "Jealousy is hard as hell." She mu......