Sellars v. Sellars, 7815
| Decision Date | 07 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 7815,7815 |
| Parties | SELLARS v. SELLARS. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Anderson & Anderson, Pocatello, for appellant.
Jones, Pomeroy & Jones, Pocatello, for respondent.
Appellant sued respondent, her husband, for separate maintenance, alleging his refusal to support her, abandonment, and physical mistreatment.
Respondent denied her accusations and cross-complained for divorce on the grounds of her making false accusations of immoral relations with other women and infection with a venereal disease--all causing him mental suffering.
The appeal herein is from the decree granting respondent a divorce, and all appellant's assignments of error center in the contention the evidence is insufficient to support the findings.
The trial judge is the arbiter of conflicting evidence and his determination of the weight, credibility, inferences and implications thereof is not to be supplanted by this Court's impressions or conclusions from the written record. Piatt v. Piatt, 32 Idaho 407, 184 P. 470; Cox v. Cox, 45 Idaho 49, 260 P. 693; Clark v. Clark, 58 Idaho 37, 69 P.2d 980; Hiltbrand v. Hiltbrand, 68 Idaho 275, 193 P.2d 391.
Appellant urges that accusations of the kind made here, though false, nevertheless if based upon probable cause, would not constitute cruelty. The trial court saw and heard the witnesses and could thus better determine whether there was probable cause and whether the charges were false or baseless, and also determine the effect of the charges on respondent's health.
There was substantial evidence to which the trial court could give credence that there was no reasonable justification or, indeed, any justification for the accusations and that they were false and that respondent's health was injuriously affected thereby.
Conceding that other conclusions could have been drawn, the evidence is sufficient to support his findings and conclusion drawn therefrom, and it would serve no useful purpose to go into the details of the evidence pro or con.
The decree is, therefore, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...Fenton v. King Hill Irr. Dist., 67 Idaho 456, 186 P.2d 477; Smith v. University of Idaho, 67 Idaho 22, 170 P.2d 404; Sellars v. Sellars, 73 Idaho 163, 248 P.2d 1063. This court has reiterated time and again the principle that the questions of the negligence of the defendant, or of the contr......
-
Gapsch v. Gapsch
...resolves the conflicting evidence and determines the weight, credibility and inferences to be drawn from such evidence, Sellars v. Sellars, 73 Idaho 163, 248 P.2d 1063; furthermore, where there is substantial and competent, although conflicting evidence of such acts and conduct, the finding......
-
Jensen v. Bledsoe
...Inc. v. Brown, 90 Idaho 403, 411, 412 P.2d 586, 590 (1966); Fish v. Fleishman, 87 Idaho 126, 391 P.2d 344 (1964); Sellars v. Sellars, 73 Idaho 163, 248 P.2d 1063 (1952). Thus if the trier of fact finds a fact to be established by clear and convincing evidence, that finding will not be rever......
-
Angleton v. Angleton
...credibility and inferences to be drawn from such evidence. Gapsch v. Gapsch, 76 Idaho 44, 277 P.2d 278, 54 A.L.R.2d 416; Sellars v. Sellars, 73 Idaho 163, 248 P.2d 1063. That the trial court could have viewed the facts differently, or that we might perhaps have done so, if we had been the i......