Smeltzer v. Smeltzer

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HARVEY
• Citation: Smeltzer v. Smeltzer, 262 P.2d 826, 175 Kan. 293 (Kan. 1953)
• Decision Date: 07 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 39108,39108
• Parties: SMELTZER v. SMELTZER.

Page 826

262 P.2d 826

175 Kan. 293

SMELTZER v. SMELTZER.

No. 39108.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Nov. 7, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

To justify the granting of a divorce there must be corroborating evidence of the testimony given by the complaining spouse as to the delinquencies of the defending spouse alleged as grounds for the divorce.

James R. Boyd, Larned, John A. Etling and W. N. Beezley, Kinsley, on the brief, for appellant.

W. H. Vernon, Larned, on the brief, for appellee.

HARVEY, Chief Justice.

This is a divorce case. On July 15, 1952, plaintiff filed his petition for divorce against his wife upon the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. In due time she filed an answer in which she denied the accusations in plaintiff's petition as grounds for divorce. She also filed a cross-petition for divorce against the plaintiff upon the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. He filed an answer to her cross-petition in which he denied the charges against him in the cross-petition as grounds for divorce. On December 1, 1952, the plaintiff dismissed his petition. On January 6, 1953, the case came on for trial upon defendant's cross-petition and plaintiff's answer thereto. At the close of the evidence on behalf of defendant in support of her cross-petition the trial court sustained plaintiff's demurrer thereto and rendered judgment denying her the relief sought by her cross-petition. Defendant has appealed.

Defendant testified that she and the plaintiff were married at West Palm Beach, Florida, October 8, 1937. She was a graduate registered nurse and working as an operating room supervisor. The plaintiff was a technician at the base hospital. They worked at their respective professions with brief interruptions at several places and came to Larned, Kansas, in January 1949, where they have been employed since. At the time of the trial defendant was employed as a nurse at the Kansas State Hospital at a salary of $254 per month and plaintiff was employed as a laboratory and X-ray technician at the Gleason Hospital at a salary of $525 per month. They have two children, Robert, born March 3, 1941, and Michael Don, born June 11, 1945. Before coming to Larned they accumulated some property. While living at Larned they bought some lots and built a residence thereon. Plaintiff, who is a skilled carpenter, did practically all the work, working at night and Sundays. Defendant assisted him with the painting and helped put up plaster board and do other things. There is still some work, both inside and outside, to be done. Defendant placed a value on it of $10,000.

We need not detail her testimony presented for the purpose of establishing his extreme cruelty or gross neglect of duty. It would be no kindness to the parties or their children to do so, neither would it add much, if anything, to the legal lore of the state. It is sufficient to say that much of it related to relatively trivial matters and would be wholly inadequate to support the grounds for divorce relied upon by defendant. The few circumstances which, if more particularized, might have tended to support the grounds for divorce by defendant were not corroborated by other evidence. The trial court sustained plaintiff's demurrer to her evidence for the reason that such evidence as she gave tending to support her charges was not corroborated.

Our pertinent statute G.S.1949, 60-1509, reads: 'In all actions for divorce or alimony, or for both divorce and alimony, hereafter to...