Stinson v. Stinson
| Decision Date | 29 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 17638.,17638. |
| Citation | 117 Ind.App. 661,74 N.E.2d 745 |
| Parties | STINSON v. STINSON. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Hamilton Circuit Court; Cassius M. Gentry, Judge.
Action for divorce by Isom Dale Stinson against Lesta Mae Stinson. From a judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and ordering deed conveying realty to defendant set aside and realty conveyed to plaintiff and defendant as tenants in common, defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Johnson & Stewart, of Anderson, for appellant.
Salyer & Cleveland, of Anderson, and Tom R. White, of Noblesville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment granting appellee a divorce from appellant. Appellee in his complaint charged appellant with cruel and inhuman treatment. In its judgment the court ordered set aside a deed conveying certain real estate in Madison County to appellant, and appointed a Commissioner to convey said real estate to the parties hereto as tenants in common. This appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision and judgment of the trial court.
It would serve good purpose to set out the evidence which is conflicting. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of cruel and inhuman treatment. It is true, as contended by appellant, that where each of the married parties have committed a matrimonial offense which is a cause for divorce, when one seeks this remedy the trial court will not grant either party a divorce. In this case the trial court, by its judgment, presumably determined this condition 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 property settlement made by the court.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v. O'Connor
...v. Haverstock (1965), 246 Ind. 426, 206 N.E.2d 368. Sims v. Sims (1957), 128 Ind.App. 408, 146 N.E.2d 111. Stinson v. Stinson (1947), 117 Ind.App. 661, 74 N.E.2d 745. Smiley v. Smiley (1943), 114 Ind.App. 138, 51 N.E.2d 98. McMurrey v. McMurrey (1936), 210 Ind. 595, 4 N.E.2d 540. Some state......
-
Bitner v. Bitner, 28641
...v. Adkins, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 189, 194, 70 N.E.2d 750; Waid v. Waid, 1946, 117 Ind.App. 4, 8, 66 N.E.2d 907; Stinson v. Stinson, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 661, 662, 74 N.E.2d 745; Adams v. Adams, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 335, 337, 69 N.E.2d The rule governing the courts on the matter of granting allowan......
-
Nagel v. Nagel, 19169
...on by the parties at some time prior to the divorce suit in favor of the appellant. Smith v. Smith et al., supra; Stinson v. Stinson, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 661, 74 N.E.2d 745; Wallace v. Wallace, supra. Something more than is proposed here by the appellant is necessary to show that the trial c......
-
Woodcox v. Woodcox
...be granted a divorce. As to this contention of the appellant, we call attention to and quote from the case of Stinson v. Stinson (1947) 117 Ind.App. 661, 662, 74 N.E.2d 745, 746, as 'It is true, as contended by appellant, that where each of the married parties have committed a matrimonial o......