Von Pein v. Von Pein, No. 19902
| Docket Nº | No. 19902 |
| Citation | 136 Ind.App. 283, 200 N.E.2d 230 |
| Case Date | July 23, 1964 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 230
v.
Evelyn E. VON PEIN, Appellee.
[136 Ind.App. 284] David L. Millen, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Robert V. Bridwell, Indianapolis, Griffis, Griffis & Cox, Richmond, for appellee.
RYAN, Judge.
The appellee filed her petition for divorce against the appellant alleging the statutory ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Appellant filed an answer thereto under Rule 1-3, and a cross-petition alleging that appellee had been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward the appellant. Trial was had by the Superior Court of Wayne County, and such court rendered a finding and judgment for the appellee, granting to her an absolute divorce, custody of minor children, and providing for the disposition and settlement of the property of the parties. Appellant filed his motion for a new trial alleging that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law, and that the assessment of the amount of recovery of property by the petitioner was erroneous in that it was too large. The trial court overruled such motion, and this appeal followed, the assignment of error being based on the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.
[136 Ind.App. 285] The main contention of the appellant is that the evidence submitted to the trial court cannot sustain the statutory allegation of cruel and inhuman treatment.
Each of these cases must be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances, and no hard and fast rule can be specifically enumerated as to what constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment. In
Page 231
Bone v. Bone (1962), 132 Ind.App. 630, 632, 179 N.E.2d 584, this court, speaking through Myers, J., held:'We shall consider the evidence most favorable to appellee to determine whether or not the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom support the finding that appellant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment toward appellee. If there is any substantial evidence of probative value to sustain the finding and decision of the trial court, the judgment must be affirmed. Mitchell v. Mitchell (1956), 126 Ind.App. 377, 133 N.E.2d 79; Poore v. Poore (1955), 125 Ind.App. 392, 125 N.E.2d 810.'
We do not feel it necessary to go into detail concerning the particular evidence submitted to the trial court. As is usual in these cases, such testimony was of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v. Weiss, No. 21172A93
...court's action is supportable in these precedents: Jackman v. Jackman (1973), Ind.Ct.App., 294 N.E.2d 620; Von Pein v. Von Pein (1964), 136 Ind.App. 283, 200 N.E.2d The circumstances of this case should be distinguished from Hardiman v. Hardiman, (1972) Ind.Ct.App., 284 N.E.2d 820, in that ......
-
Languell v. Languell, No. 1067A82
...action in the adjustment of property rights will not be interfered with unless an abuse is clearly shown. Von Pein v. Von Pein (1964), 136 Ind.App. 283, 286, 200 N.E.2d 230; Tomchany v. Tomchany (1962), 134 Ind.App. 27, 32, 185 N.E.2d 301; Page 589 Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, ......
-
Chaleff v. Chaleff, No. 568A86
...(1956); Holst v. Holst, 139 Ind.App. 683, 212 N.E.2d 26 (1965); Grant v. Grant, Ind.App., 230 N.E.2d 339 (1967); Von Pein v. Von Pein, 136 Ind.App. 283, 200 N.E.2d 230 (1964); Tomchany v. Tomchany, 134 Ind.App. 27, 185 N.E.2d 301 (1962); Page 770 and Draime v. Draime, 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N......
-
Weiss v. Weiss, No. 21172A93
...court's action is supportable in these precedents: Jackman v. Jackman (1973), Ind.Ct.App., 294 N.E.2d 620; Von Pein v. Von Pein (1964), 136 Ind.App. 283, 200 N.E.2d The circumstances of this case should be distinguished from Hardiman v. Hardiman, (1972) Ind.Ct.App., 284 N.E.2d 820, in that ......
-
Languell v. Languell, No. 1067A82
...action in the adjustment of property rights will not be interfered with unless an abuse is clearly shown. Von Pein v. Von Pein (1964), 136 Ind.App. 283, 286, 200 N.E.2d 230; Tomchany v. Tomchany (1962), 134 Ind.App. 27, 32, 185 N.E.2d 301; Page 589 Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind.App. 99, ......
-
Chaleff v. Chaleff, No. 568A86
...(1956); Holst v. Holst, 139 Ind.App. 683, 212 N.E.2d 26 (1965); Grant v. Grant, Ind.App., 230 N.E.2d 339 (1967); Von Pein v. Von Pein, 136 Ind.App. 283, 200 N.E.2d 230 (1964); Tomchany v. Tomchany, 134 Ind.App. 27, 185 N.E.2d 301 (1962); Page 770 and Draime v. Draime, 132 Ind.App. 99, 173 N......