Sostheim v. Sostheim, 27524.
| Citation | 32 N.E.2d 699,218 Ind. 352 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 27524.,27524. |
| Parties | SOSTHEIM v. SOSTHEIM. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action for divorce by Will R. Sostheim against Margueritte Warner Sostheim. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The case was transferred from the Appellate Court under Burns' Ann.St. § 4-218.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County; Byron C. Kennedy, judge.
Bloom & Bloom, of Columbia City, for appellant.
Gates & Gates, of Columbia City, for appellee.
There are only two questions raised by this appeal both arising on conflicting evidence which we are asked to weigh. Divorce was granted to appellee on his complaint.
It is claimed that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because appellee's residence in the state for one year and in Kosciusko county, where the action originated, for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the action, was not sufficiently proved as required by § 3-1203, Burns' Stat.1933, § 904, Baldwin's Stat.1934. Two householders testified that he had resided in Kosciusko county for more than the six months and two others that he had resided in Indiana for more than the year immediately preceding the filing of his petition which occurred September 21, 1938. The opinions in Coulter v. Coulter, 1937, 103 Ind.App. 565, 567, 9 N.E.2d 141, and in McMurrey v. McMurrey, 1936, 210 Ind. 595, 596, 4 N.E.2d 540,render unnecessary any elaboration of this point. The cases are parallel. Residence was sufficiently proved to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The latter case likewise disposes of the only other question, insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision. It would serve no good purpose to review the evidence which is quite conflicting. The gravamen of the action was cruel and inhuman treatment and the testimony of appellee alone is amply sufficient, for the court will not weigh the evidence but will affirm the judgment if there was any evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have inferred the ultimate facts necessary to his decision.
But appellant insists that the evidence inescapably points to appellee's adultery so that the principles stated in Eikenbury v. Eikenbury, 1904, 33 Ind.App. 69, 70 N.E. 837, and Eward v. Eward, 1919, 72 Ind.App. 638, 125 N.E. 468, are applicable. The latter was disapproved in McMurrey v. McMurrey, supra. The interests of society require, as stated in the Eikenbury case, that the trial court inquire into the facts to discover if the complaining party should be denied a divorce because of his own misconduct. In cases where the defendant is defaulted the prosecuting attorney must appear for that and other reasons. But when the trial judge has performed that duty it is not our province to disturb his decision except for errors of law.
The evidence disclosed that appellee and his housekeeper who was also his secretary occupied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodcox v. Woodcox
...did not exist. We cannot overrule its finding without weighing the evidence. This we are not permitted to do. Sostheim v. Sostheim, 1941, 218 Ind. 352, 32 N.E.2d 699.' See, also, Bone v. Bone (1962) 32 Ind.App. 630, 632, 179 N.E.2d On the record now before us, we cannot interfere with the j......
-
Hill v. Hill, 20269
...did not exist. We cannot overrule its finding without weighing the evidence. This we are not permitted to do. Sostheim v. Sostheim (1941), 218 Ind. 352, 32 N.E.2d 699.' See also, Bone v. Bone (1962), 132 Ind.App. 630, 179 N.E.2d Much of the evidence adduced at the trial was conflicting, whi......
-
Stinson v. Stinson
...did not exist. We cannot overrule its finding without weighing the evidence. This we are not permitted to do. Sosteim v. Sosteim, 1941, 218 Ind. 352, 32 N.E.2d 699. Under authority of the case of Mendenhall v. Mendenhall, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 545, 64 N.E.2d 806, we will not disturb the proper......