Stults v. Stults

• Decision Date: 18 September 1886
• Parties: Stults v. Stults.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

107 Ind. 400

8 N.E. 238

Stults

v.Stults.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

September 18, 1886.

Appeal from Huntington circuit court.

Branyan, Spencer, Kaufman & Branyan, for appellant. B. F. Ibach, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

A decree of divorce was given in favor of Mary A. Stults, in the court below, upon her petition charging that her husband, George W. Stults, treated her cruelly and inhumanly, and that he was an habitual drunkard. Alimony was prayed for in the petition; but, as no evidence was offered upon the subject of the appellant's property by the petitioner, it is apparent that in respect to that subject the petition was abandoned. In a pleading denominated an answer the appellant set up that, at the time of his marriage, he was possessed of real and personal property of the value of $6,000. He averred, further, that he was induced, by the plaintiff's professions of affection for him, to settle upon her real and personal property of the value of $3,000. He charged, further, that after his wife had obtained the above-mentioned property she abandoned him without cause, and that, in order to bring about a reconciliation, and to induce her to return and resume her marital duties with him, he purchased a lot, taking the title in her name, and that thereafter they jointly paid for the erection of a house and improvements thereon; the defendant expending in and about such improvements all his available means. The lots and improvements thus held and produced are alleged to be of the value of $9,000. The answer avers that, in making the professions and promises above mentioned the plaintiff had not acted in good faith; that, by means thereof, she had artfully secured possession of the defendant's property, and had thereafter, without cause, abandoned him, and instituted proceedings for divorce. He asked, in the event a decree of divorce was granted on the plaintiff's application, that the court would award him a fair and equitable division of the property. Issue was made by a reply in denial.

The plaintiff having offered no evidence in support of her prayer for alimony, the defendant, while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, was asked the following question: “What amount of property did you turn over to your wife, if any? On what condition or consideration, if any, was it done?” Upon objection being made, the defendant, by counsel, announced that he proposed to prove, in answer to the question propounded, substantially the facts set up in his answer. The testimony was excluded, and this ruling presents the only question for decision. The purpose for which the excluded evidence was offered was not to refute the charge of habitual drunkenness or cruel treatment, although the appellant gave evidence in denial of those charges, but to secure an equitable share of the property previously settled upon the plaintiff in the event a divorce should be awarded in her favor.

The plaintiff having abandoned any claim for alimony, and there being no demand on her part for the adjustment of any property rights, there was nothing before the court to which the offered evidence was relevant. The only pertinent subject under...