Venegoni v. Venegoni
| Decision Date | 05 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 23849.,23849. |
| Citation | 100 S.W.2d 340 |
| Parties | VENEGONI v. VENEGONI. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert J. Kirkwood, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Suit by Emma Venegoni against Louis Venegoni. From a judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and permanent alimony, plaintiff and defendant appeal.
Reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.
Gus O. Nations, of St. Louis, for plaintiff.
Joseph B. Catanzaro, of St. Louis, for defendant.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for divorce. Plaintiff in her petition charges as grounds for a divorce intolerable indignities and habitual drunkenness. The court granted plaintiff a divorce and allowed her $800 as alimony in gross and $200 as attorney's fees. Both plaintiff and defendant appeal.
Plaintiff contends here that the allowance of $800 as alimony in gross is inadequate. Defendant contends that the allowance is ample. He further contends that a divorce should have been denied plaintiff.
There was some conflict in the testimony respecting plaintiff's charges. She and her witnesses gave testimony supporting her charges. They testified that defendant was habitually and almost constantly drunk and quarrelsome, and habitually cursed and abused the plaintiff and called her all kinds of foul names, and frequently ordered her away from his home. They also testified respecting his clandestine associations with another woman, and his intimacies with a negro maid in the family household. Their testimony further shows that plaintiff had always conducted herself in a proper and wifely manner.
Plaintiff and defendant were married in July, 1931, and they finally separated in October, 1933. Plaintiff had been previously married, and has two grown daughters. Defendant had been previously married, and has three grown sons. Defendant admitted he had been associating with another woman, taking her out frequently, but stated that this was "only for a good time." He denied that he was quarrelsome, or that he cursed or abused plaintiff, or called her foul names, or ordered her from his home. He admitted that he drank a good deal, but denied that he got drunk. He and his witnesses testified to the effect that plaintiff was possessed of an ungovernable temper and was habitually quarrelsome and abusive. Plaintiff denied this.
It would serve no useful purpose to set out the conflicting testimony in more detail. Plaintiff was unquestionably entitled to a divorce if the testimony of herself and her witnesses was believed by the learned trial judge, and it is obvious that this court ought to defer to his finding on the conflicting testimony. Pickrel v. Pickrel (Mo.App.) 86 S.W.(2d) 336; Douglass v. Douglass, 224 Mo.App. 485, 28 S.W.(2d) 398, 399; Lampe v. Lampe (Mo.App.) 28 S.W.(2d) 414; Krebs v. Krebs (Mo.App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 171; Thompson v. Thompson (Mo.App.) 84 S.W.(2d) 990; Kistner v. Kistner (Mo.App.) 89 S.W.(2d) 106; Cherry v. Cherry, 258 Mo. 391, 167 S.W. 539; Hoecker v. Hoecker (Mo.Sup.) 222 S.W. 387; Bassett v. Bassett (Mo.Sup.) 280 S.W. 430; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 29 Mo. 95; King v. King, 42 Mo.App. 454.
The evidence shows that defendant owns property of the value of $89,900, and has an income of $600 per month. Defendant in his brief filed here admits his ownership of property of the value of $52,900. Plaintiff did not aid defendant in the accumulation of his wealth. Both parties had reached a mature age at the time of their marriage. Their final separation occurred slightly more than two years after their marriage. Plaintiff has no means of her own. The court has found and adjudged that she is the innocent and injured party. The allowance of $800 alimony in gross is manifestly inadequate. See Hoecker v. Hoecker (Mo.Sup.), 222 S.W. 387, 389; Viertel v. Viertel, 212 Mo. 562, 111 S.W. 579, 582; Lemp v. Lemp, 249 Mo. 295, 155 S.W. 1057, Ann.Cas. 1914D, 307; Gercke v. Gercke, 100 Mo. 237, loc. cit. 242, 13 S.W. 400; Schwer v. Schwer (Mo.App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 684; Aylor v. Aylor (Mo.Sup.) 186 S.W. 1068, loc. cit. 1069.
It is not disputed that this is a proper case for the allowance of alimony in gross.
With respect to the allowance of permanent alimony, our Supreme Court in Viertel v. Viertel, supra, stated the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koslow v. Taylor
... ... Pickett v. Pickett, 150 S.W. 589; Bova v ... Bova, 135 S.W.2d 384; Vermillion v. Vermillion, ... 130 S.W.2d 195; Venegoni v. Venegoni, 100 S.W.2d ... 340; Pickrell v. Pickrell, 86 S.W.2d 336; Glenn ... v. Glenn, 192 S.W.2d 629, also cases under Point (1) ... (3) The ... ...
-
Ijames v. Ijames
...v. Lampe, Mo.App., 28 S.W.2d 414; Latta v. Latta, Mo.App., 39 S.W.2d 563; Pickrel v. Pickrel, Mo.App., 86 S.W.2d 336; Venegoni v. Venegoni, Mo.App., 100 S.W.2d 340. In the case at hand the evidence is conflicting. If the court believed the testimony, then she had just cause for leaving the ......
-
Ridge v. Ridge
...Holm, Mo.App., 251 S.W. 130; Vermillion v. Vermillion, Mo. App., 130 S.W.2d 195; Bova v. Bova, Mo. App., 135 S.W.2d 384; Venegoni v. Venegoni, Mo.App., 100 S.W.2d 340; Lampe v. Lampe, Mo.App., 28 S.W.2d It would add nothing to the sum total of legal knowledge for us to discuss the various p......
-
Pickett v. Pickett
...in the testimony deference should be given to the trial judge's finding. Schulte v. Schulte, Mo.App., 127 S.W.2d 748; Venegoni v. Venegoni, Mo. App., 100 S.W.2d 340; Pickrel v. Pickrel, Mo.App., 86 S.W.2d 336; Wirthman v. Wirthman, 225 Mo.App. 692, 39 S.W.2d 404; Lampe v. Lampe, Mo.App., 28......