Stone v. Stone
| Decision Date | 22 September 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.W. 390,94 Wis. 28 |
| Parties | STONE v. STONE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Winnebago county; George W. Burnell, Judge.
Action by Agnes Stone against Frank Stone. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Goodrick & Goodrick and F. W. Houghton, for appellant.
Bouck & Hilton, for respondent.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married March 2, 1880, and this action is for a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The treatment alleged consisted, in effect, in being required and compelled by the defendant, during all their married life, to do and to perform, in addition to her domestic work, heavy manual labor in the fields, in doing all kinds of farm work, far beyond her strength, until she became broken down in health, sick, and unable to do the domestic or house work, which she was required by the defendant to do; that for several years such treatment had been uniformly cruel and inhuman, requiring and obliging her to perform work and services for him while sick and physically unable to perform work and labor, and under the doctor's care, in unreasonably refusing to employ or provide help for the plaintiff in the performance of the domestic work on the farm, and in neglecting and refusing to provide the necessary and proper medical attendance and medicines during her sickness; that, during the year immediately prior to the commencement of this action, she repeatedly appealed to the defendant to get a girl to do the house work, or to assist her in doing the same; that the defendant persistently and unreasonably refused to employ help, and frequently said to the plaintiff, with an oath, if she could not do the work, to pick up her things and go. The defendant answered by way of admissions and denials, and alleged, in effect, that the plaintiff only occasionally worked upon the farm, and then only in case of emergency, and then without any objection on her part, and of her own free will and accord, but had not worked on the farm nor in the field for the last three years prior to the commencement of the action; that in September, 1894, she desired the defendant to employ a hired girl, which he did not do, because he deemed it unnecessary. At the close of the trial the court found in favor of the defendant, and to the effect that the defendant was not guilty of the cruel and inhuman treatment alleged, and that there was no ground or cause for a divorce. And as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spheeris v. Spheeris
... ... Stone v. Stone (1896), 94 Wis. 28, 30, 68 N.W ... Page 134 ... 390; Gordon v. Gordon (1955), 270 Wis. 332, 340, 71 N.W.2d 386; Subrt v. Subrt (1957), ... ...
-
Gordon v. Gordon
...of evidence which the court was entitled to deem credible that supports the findings. It appears, too, as was said in Stone v. Stone, 1896, 94 Wis. 28, 30, 68 N.W. 390, 391, that 'The trial judge had an opportunity of correctly determining the credibility of the witnesses, and the truth of ......
- City of Milwaukee v. Weiss
-
Merten v. National Mfrs. Bank of Neenah
...a divorce action must be affirmed unless clearly contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Stone v. Stone (1896), 94 Wis. 28, 30, 68 N.W. 390; Gordon v. Gordon (1955), 270 Wis. 332, 340, 71 N.W.2d 386; Subrt v. Subrt (1957), 275 Wis. 628, 630, 83 N.W.2d 122. In t......