Smith v. Smith
Decision Date | 07 March 1921 |
Parties | OKLE B. SMITH, Respondent, v. LeROY SMITH, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Daniel E Bird, Judge.
Reversed.
L. O Carter for respondent.
C. R Leslie for appellant.
This is a suit for divorce. The parties were married at Victoria, B. C., May 5, 1914, and lived together as husband and wife until on or about March 16, 1918, when they separated and have not lived together since. Suit was filed in the circuit court of Jackson County at Independence, Missouri, July 7, 1919, and was transferred to Kansas City, tried in division No. 8 of the circuit court November 25, 1919, taken under advisement by the court and decision rendered December, 16, 1919, granting plaintiff a decree of divorce. Defendant appealed.
The petition (omitting all formal matters) alleges that "at the time the marriage between plaintiff and defendant was contracted, as aforesaid, defendant was and still is impotent." Plaintiff further asked that her maiden name be restored.
Defendant, in his answer, admits the marriage as alleged in the petition and denies each and every other allegation therein contained. And for further defense the answer charges plaintiff with unfaithfulness to her marriage vows made with defendant and specifically sets out alleged acts of unfaithfulness of plaintiff. The amended reply is a general denial of the allegations of unfaithfulness set up in defendant's answer and contains certain charges against defendant, among them "that defendant employed would-be-sleuths to shadow and observe her daily acts and conduct." These charges are clearly new matter which may not be set up in a reply.
"A reply cannot be used in aid of a petition by introducing for the first time a new cause of action, or an additional cause of action, nor to engraft on the petition a material allegation omitted therefrom." [Rhodes v. Land & Lumber Co., 105 Mo.App. 279, 79 S.W. 1145; Mathieson v. Railroad, 219 Mo. 542, 118 S.W. 9; Platt v. Parker-Washington, etc. Co., 161 Mo.App. 663, 669, 144 S.W. 143.]
Plaintiff's case is bottomed upon the allegation of impotency and that is the only question before us for consideration. 14 Cyc. 596-597 defines impotency as [Anonymous, 89 Ala. supra.]
This phase of the matter is fully and clearly stated in Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation, Vol. 1, section 758, as follows:
And at section 797 of the same volume, it is said:
In Rodgers on Domestic Relations, sec. 143, p. 102 we find ...
To continue reading
Request your trial