Spurlock v. Spurlock

• Decision Date: 23 July 1906
• Parties: SPURLOCK v. SPURLOCK.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

96 S.W. 753

SPURLOCK v. SPURLOCK.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 23, 1906.

On Rehearing, October 8, 1906.

Appeal from Fulton Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor.

Suit by T. J. Spurlock against Mary J. Spurlock for divorce, and from a decree granting complainant a divorce, and determining the rights of the parties as to certain property, both parties appeal. Reversed in part, and remanded, with directions for the entry of a decree.

Sam H. Davidson, for plaintiff. Charles E. Elmore and J. L. Short, Campbell & Stevenson, for defendant.

HILL, C. J.

The appellee, T. J. Spurlock, sued appellant, Mary J. Spurlock, his wife, for divorce, alleging adultery with several parties. She denied all the charges against her, and made a countercharge of cruel treatment and asked a divorce be granted her on that ground. She makes these allegations in pleadings and evidence in regard to their property interest: That she and her husband were engaged in the hotel and mercantile business at Evening Shade, and sold out there, and reinvested in like enterprises at Mammoth Spring; Spurlock conducting the mercantile business and she the hotel business; that the first hotel burned, and Spurlock collected about $1,000 insurance which he used in his grocery and other enterprises and which did not go to her; that a mortgage to a Building & Loan Association for $1,000 was placed on the property to pay for the rebuilding of the hotel; that she paid said mortgage herself and her husband paid no part of it; that she purchased a lot of hogs and cattle, and hotel furniture and erected a sample room, all from her separate earnings. In general she charged that she ran the hotel, earned all it made; that it was understood she had that business and her husband the mercantile; that she supported both from the hotel business and helped him, and he did not help her; "and in justice and equity should be the sole owner" of the hotel property. On the other hand, Spurlock charges that he ran the business with her help in looking after the servants when he was not there. The hotel was their home, even after their separation, both lived there in separate rooms. The chancellor granted the husband the divorce on grounds of adultery in the wife; found the hogs, cattle, and hotel furniture, and the sample room were the separate property of Mrs. Spurlock; found against her as to the hotel property, and she appeals. And Spurlock appeals from so much of the decree as finds any of the property to be Mrs. Spurlock's.

1. The first question is as to the adultery charges against Mrs. Spurlock and the countercharge of cruel treatment against Mr. Spurlock. The appellant objects to certain testimony tending to prove adultery after the suit was filed. The cause of divorce must exist, before the commencement of the suit. Kirby's Dig. § 2678. But her relations with this co-respondent were shown to have commenced before the suit, and evidence of adultery with him after the bringing of the suit would be admissible, not as a cause of divorce, but as tending to prove a lustful rather than an innocent character to her relations with him prior to the suit. The chancellor found her guilty with him before the commencement of this action. The preponderance of the evidence is against Mrs. Spurlock on both of these issues, and it would serve no useful purpose to review it, and the decree as to the divorce is affirmed.

2. The chancellor found that the hogs, cattle, and hotel furniture, and the sample room built on the hotel grounds were the separate property of Mrs. Spurlock, and the court is of opinion that the weight of the evidence sustains that finding, and the decree on that issue is affirmed on the cross-appeal.

3. Mrs. Spurlock claims that the hotel property was purchased with money derived from her separate business of hotel keeper, before and after it was rebuilt; that no part of her husband's means, earnings, or services have acquired that property. Mr. Spurlock denies all of this, and it cannot be said that the preponderance is with her, and the finding of the chancellor is against her on this. But as to this fact the preponderance of the evidence is decidedly with Mrs. Spurlock: That she ran the hotel as a separate business; that her husband was no more service to her in that business than she was to him in the grocery and mercantile business. Each was conducting a business enterprise on his or her own account; and she worked hard and with fair success in the hotel business; and from the proceeds of the hotel business the mortgage of $1,000 upon the hotel property was paid by her in monthly installments, except a balance of a few hundred dollars, and that she discharged with money borrowed from...