Stocker v. Stocker

• Decision Date: 26 May 1924
• Docket Number: 22757
• Parties: THOMAS R. P. STOCKER, APPELLANT, v. GUSSIE E. STOCKER, APPELLEE
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

199 N.W. 23

112 Neb. 201

THOMAS R. P. STOCKER, APPELLANT, v. GUSSIE E. STOCKER, APPELLEE

No. 22757

Supreme Court of Nebraska

May 26, 1924

APPEAL from the district court for Lancaster county: WILLIAM M MORNING, JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

C. C Flansburg and T. R. P. Stocker, for appellant.

Kelligar & Ferneau and McCarty & Hager, contra.

Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ROSE, DAY and GOOD, JJ., BLACKLEDGE and REDICK, District Judges.

OPINION

GOOD, J.

Plaintiff brought this action against his wife to obtain, on ground of extreme cruelty, a divorce and the custody of the minor child of the parties. Defendant filed an answer and cross-petition, in which she charged plaintiff with extreme cruelty, and asked for a decree of separate maintenance, and also for the custody of the minor child. The trial resulted in a decree denying plaintiff any relief, and awarding defendant the custody of the child, requiring plaintiff to pay the sum of $ 250 to meet the immediate needs and necessities of the defendant and the minor child, and requiring the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the further sum of $ 50 a month for the support and maintenance of defendant and the minor child. Plaintiff has appealed.

The parties to this action were married at Auburn, Nebraska, in June, 1916, and immediately took up their residence with plaintiff's parents in the city of Lincoln, where they continued to reside until July, 1921, when defendant, with the minor child, then nearly four years of age, returned to the home of her parents at Auburn. Both of the parties to this action were young people of more than average intelligence, and each came from families that were well-to-do financially. Plaintiff was a young lawyer and had but small income when they were married. It was largely because his income was small and he was without property that they arranged to live with his parents. Within a short time friction developed between defendant and plaintiff's parents. At first plaintiff gave aid and comfort to his wife and seemed to stand by her in their difficulties, but later he espoused the cause of his parents.

The record shows that the young wife was allowed but little, if anything, to say in the management of the household affairs. She was either denied the privilege of having her relatives and friends visit her, or made so uncomfortable when they did come that they ceased to visit her. Plaintiff's parents were aged, and the mother particularly seemed to be of a violent temper and frequently lost her poise and called the defendant vile and indecent names, accused her of theft, and on more than one occasion assaulted her, and life was made so unbearable that defendant was practically driven from the home. She often requested the plaintiff to secure a separate home where she would not be subjected to these indignities. This he failed to do, upon financial grounds as well as upon the ground that his parents were aged and needed his care and attention.

Without reviewing the evidence in detail, suffice it to say that we have read the entire record, and we have reached the same conclusion as did the trial court, that the wife was fully justified in departing from the home that her husband had provided for her and in returning to her parents. The evidence fails to show that she was guilty of any extreme cruelty toward the plaintiff or guilty of any conduct that would justify him in seeking a divorce. Plaintiff in his brief does not seriously contest this part of the decree, but insists that the decree, in effect, grants a divorce from bed and board; that it is impossible for the parties to again live together as husband and wife; that it is contrary to public policy that a limited divorce should be granted to these people, who are comparatively young in years, and that this court should modify the decree by...