Slaughter v. Slaughter

• Decision Date: 04 April 1904
• Citation: 80 S.W. 3,106 Mo.App. 104
• Parties: JACOB B. SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Defendant in Error, v. LUCY A. SLAUGHTER, Defendant and Plaintiff in Error
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

80 S.W. 3

106 Mo.App. 104

JACOB B. SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff and Defendant in Error, v. LUCY A. SLAUGHTER, Defendant and Plaintiff in Error

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

April 4, 1904

Appeal from Macon Circuit Court.--Hon. N. M. Shelton, Judge.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED (with directions).

Joseph Park & Son for plaintiff in error.

(1) Plaintiff assigns as error in the above-entitled cause the action of the court in awarding alimony in gross to the defendant in the sum of three hundred dollars, after having found that plaintiff was the innocent and injured party, and after having decreed to plaintiff an absolute divorce from defendant for defendant's fault. R. S. 1899, sec. 2929; McIntire v. McIntire, 80 Mo. 470. (2) The error is palpable and may be corrected upon a writ of error. De Hoog v. De Hoog, 65 Mo.App. 246.

Millan & Greenwood for plaintiff in error.

(1) We understand the rule has been in this State since the case of Bowers v. Bowers, 19 Mo. 351, that a petition charging indignities in general terms is not sufficiently specific under the statute. But in this case the plaintiff is in a worse condition than if he had made the charge of indignities generally. He undertakes to specify but fails to state any facts which amount to indignities such as will constitute grounds for a divorce. (2) We understand the rule is one indignity will not authorize a decree of divorce. Bowers v. Bowers, 19 Mo. 351; Dwyer v Dwyer, 26 Mo.App. 647; McCann v. McCann, 91 Mo.App. 1; Endsley v. Endsley, 89 Mo.App. 596; Lynch v. Lynch, 87 Mo.App. 32.

OPINION

BROADDUS, J.

From the judgment in this case both plaintiff and defendant have respectively prosecuted a writ of error. The action is for divorce. Plaintiff, who obtained a decree, complains of the action of the court below in rendering judgment against him for alimony. The defendant's complaint is, that the plaintiff's petition did not state a cause of action therefore the court committed error in granting him a divorce. We will consider the plaintiff's case first:

There can be no question but what it was error to render judgment against plaintiff for alimony, for the decree granting him a divorce precluded the wife from a right to a judgment for alimony. Section 2929, Revised Statutes 1899, is: "In all cases of divorce from the bonds of matrimony the guilty party shall forfeit all rights and claims under and by virtue of the marriage. " In McAntyre v. McAntyre, 80 Mo. 470, the court held: "A woman can have permanent alimony in this State only as an incident to a decree of divorce in her favor." See also De Hoog v. De Hoog, 65 Mo.App. 246.

The gist of plaintiff's petition is as follows:

"Plaintiff further states that defendant offered to plaintiff such indignities as to render his condition intolerable, in this that defendant continually abused plaintiff, quarreling at him over various and trifling matters which was wholly uncalled for and unnecessary on the part of defendant. That defendant often taunted plaintiff and falsely accused him. That defendan...