Vermillion v. Vermillion
| Decision Date | 28 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 24897.,24897. |
| Parties | VERMILLION v. VERMILLION. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; W. C. Hughes, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Action for divorce by Eulah M. Vermillion against Robert M. Vermillion. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. C. M. Lamkin, of Fulton, and David R. Hensley, of Montgomery City, for appellant.
T. A. Faucett, of Fulton, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for divorce. Plaintiff alleges in her petition as ground for a divorce that defendant has offered her such indignities as to render her condition intolerable.
The action was commenced on August 7, 1937, in the Circuit Court of Callaway County, whence it went on change of venue to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County.
The trial, which was had on January 31, 1938, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, granting her a divorce, awarding her the custody of the minor children born of the marriage, and allowing her $17.50 per month for the support and maintenance of the minor children and $50 as attorney's fees. Defendant appeals.
The evidence shows, without dispute in the record, that defendant had offered plaintiff such indignities as to render her condition intolerable. Defendant contends, however, that plaintiff condoned his misconduct by cohabitation with him after this action was commenced. The testimony concerning this issue is highly conflicting.
Plaintiff and defendant prior to their separation resided on a farm near Bachelor in Callaway County. They were living apart at the time of the commencement of this suit, and continued to live apart during the pendency of the suit. Defendant continued to live on the farm with the minor children. Plaintiff had a position in a hospital in Fulton, working in the kitchen.
Defendant testified that plaintiff returned to the home on frequent occasions during the pendency of the suit, and that she spent her vacation there of about two weeks, and that on these occasions, with a few exceptions, he and plaintiff slept in the same bed. His testimony is to some extent corroborated by two witnesses.
Plaintiff testified that she had never slept with defendant since the filing of the petition, and that when she was at the home she slept with her son Kenneth. In this she is corroborated by the testimony of Kenneth.
In view of the conflicting state of the testimony, we think we ought to defer to the finding of the trial court. Manahan v. Manahan, Mo.Sup., 52 S.W.2d 825, loc. cit. 827; Shaw v. Butler, Mo.Sup., 78 S.W. 2d 420, loc. cit 421; Bank of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koslow v. Taylor
... ... credibility and the weight to be accorded to their testimony ... 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 ... ...
-
Ridge v. Ridge
...Mo.App., 159 S.W.2d 346; Pickett v. Pickett, Mo.App., 150 S.W. 2d 587, 589; Holm v. 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 w......
- Lawyers Co-Operative Pub. Co. v. Sleater, 24872.
-
Fox v. Fox
...is the innocent and injured party. The record presents a typical case for deference to the finding of the trial court. Vermillion v. Vermillion, Mo.App., 130 S.W.2d 195; Venegoni v. Venegoni, Mo.App., 100 S.W.2d 340; Esworthy v. Esworthy, 223 Mo.App. 171, 11 S.W.2d 1078; Miles v. Miles, Mo.......