Wallrich v. Wallrich

• Decision Date: 17 November 1942
• Docket Number: 46058.
• Citation: 6 N.W.2d 107,232 Iowa 762
• Parties: WALLRICH v. WALLRICH.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

6 N.W.2d 107

232 Iowa 762

WALLRICH v. WALLRICH.

No. 46058.

Supreme Court of Iowa

November 17, 1942

Diamond & Jory, of Sheldon, for appellant.

L L. Corcoran, of Sibley, and Fisher & Fisher, of Rock Rapids, for appellee.

MITCHELL, Justice.

The plaintiff was married on the 24th day of October, 1939, to Harold Wallrich, who is the son of the defendant, Mrs. Frances Wallrich. The defendant is a widow and the mother of two sons and four daughters. The plaintiff is the daughter of a farmer living in the vicinity of Ashton, Iowa, and not far from the Wallrich farm. On the 27th day of December, 1940, she commenced this action alleging that due to the conduct of the said defendant the affections of the plaintiff's husband were alienated and he was caused to leave and desert her. There was a trial to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

The appellant strenuously argues that the lower court erred in overruling the motion for a directed verdict made by the appellant at the close of the appellee's testimony and renewed at the close of all of the evidence, contending that the record clearly shows that the evidence of the appellee and that of her witnesses was wholly insufficient to submit this case to the jury, and that as a matter of law, it was the duty of the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the appellant, so we turn to the record to ascertain the facts.

In the case of Stilwell v. Stilwell, 186 Iowa 177, on page 188, 172 N.W 177, on page 182, this court said: "In the case at bar all we may inquire into is whether we can say, as matter of law, that the proof adduced was insufficient. The jury has found that the essentials to a verdict have been sufficiently established. We can interfere only if we may say that no reasonable mind could so find. It is not a question of what we think of the evidence. The narrow question before us is whether a jury could in reason find that the matters we have referred to as being necessary elements in the proof have been established. We have already said that as a guide to appellate review fact cases are of little help. In the last analysis, the question here is whether, as matter of law, the evidence in this very case is insufficient to sustain a recovery."

Verna Wallrich was born in Osceola County. She was the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Klunenburg. She lived with her father and mother and two sisters on a farm not far from the Wallrich farm. Harold Wallrich is the son of Mrs. Frances Wallrich, the appellant. He and his brother Gilbert rented a farm from their mother and the mother, Mrs. Frances Wallrich, lived in the town of Ashton. Harold and Verna had been acquainted all of their lives. Verna at the time of her marriage was 21 and Harold was 28. While they were acquainted with each other and their families were acquainted they had never gone together until the evening of September 7, 1939. On that evening Vic Winchell, a friend of both of them, arranged an engagement between Harold and Verna. Harold drove to the home of Verna's parents, Vic accompanying him, and they picked up Verna, started to a nearby town to secure a young lady friend of Vic's and then headed to Remsen for the dance, stopping on the way at Sheldon where liquor was purchased, which was consumed later by the four of them at the dance. It was early on the morning of September 8th that they started back home and sometime before they reached home Harold and Verna had intercourse. They were together on several occasions shortly thereafter and on several of these occasions they had intercourse.

On October 1st Verna informed Harold that she was pregnant and they made plans and arrangements to get married. They went to see their pastor and talked the matter over with him and after leaving the pastor's home they went to the house where the appellant, Harold's mother, resided, a short distance away in the town of Ashton. Harold told his mother that he was going to get married and that Verna was to be her future daughter-in-law. The evidence shows that she said at that time she thought he was crazy, that she had never expected him to get married, and finally she asked him if he had to get married, what the matter was, and Harold said, "Yes." Then she asked the appellee if she was sure that it was necessary to get married and the appellee replied that it was. That they informed the appellant that they had made arrangements with the pastor. Harold and Verna kept company every night thereafter until the day of the marriage. On the 9th day of October 1939 Harold came to the home of the Klunenburgs, accompanied by his mother, the appellant. There were present at that meeting the appellant, the appellee, Harold Wallrich, and the parents of the appellee, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Klunenburg. The appellant said that she had heard that Verna was 2 1/2 months along before she ever went with Harold. Verna denied this and Verna's father said that Harold did not have to marry Verna unless he wanted to. Harold then spoke up that he believed what Verna was saying and that they would get married. There is in the record evidence of statements made by Harold to Verna prior to the time of the wedding in which Harold said that his mother had told him that Verna was not telling the truth about her condition and that his mother was trying to keep him from getting married. That she tried to keep him from getting the marriage license and was insisting that Verna was 2 1/2 months along already.

On the 24th day of October 1939, Harold Wallrich and Verna Klunenburg were married. A week later Harold and Verna went to the home of Mrs. Wallrich, the appellant, and offered to give her her choice of the wedding pictures. She complained about them, that she did not like them and that they weren't any good. About a week after "the shower" which was held for the young married couple, Mrs. Wallrich came out to the farm. She at that time made certain statements in which she said they were living like dogs. She called Verna a hound. There was some talk about a trip to St. Paul but she said they had better not take the trip, they had better save their money for "that brat" that "will be on your hands in a couple of months." Verna asked what she meant by a couple of months and she said, "Yes, in a couple of months." Appellant then said it was not "Harold's kid" that Verna was carrying. She said that if the child doesn't come on the day it was appointed for, 15th of June, that it wasn't any relation of hers and was not going to live on her place. Appellant then said that Harold had just married an old streetwalker and that Verna had run around with every Tom, Dick and Harry and she said "she knew whose kid that was" and she mentioned a man's name.

The record clearly shows that Harold and Verna had no trouble from the time they were married up until the day, to wit, May 19, 1940, when he took Verna to the hospital at Sibley and the baby was born. During this period of time there is evidence in the record of a continuous hostile attitude of the mother towards the appellee Verna. This evidence of course is denied by the mother but that makes it a fact question for the jury to decide. Appellant argued that as mother of this boy she had the right to counsel him in all matters relating to his welfare. This of course is true but there is the added condition that in so doing she must act in good faith. In the case of Heisler v. Heisler, 151 Iowa 503, at page 505, 131 N.W. 676, at page 677, this court said: "Appellants say that, even if the jury might have found that his affections had been alienated, the finding that this had been caused by wrongdoing on their part is not sustained by the evidence. In passing on this question, it must be borne in mind that the defendants are the parents of Willie, and, owing to this relation, had the right to counsel him in all the matters relating to his welfare, provided that in so doing they acted in good faith. The reciprocal obligations and the affection of parent and child continue through life, after as well as before marriage, and caution must be exercised lest the assertion of a supposed right of action be made to rest upon a proper parental regard to the welfare and happiness of the child. There is a broad distinction between a case of this kind against the parent and one against a stranger. Parents are under obligations by the laws of nature to protect their children from injury and relieve them when in distress. Their natural affections prompt them to interest themselves in the welfare of the child. Conduct of a stranger which justly would be characterized as that of a malicious intermeddler might express but the natural impulse of parents. The law recognizes the right of father or mother to advise their son concerning his domestic affairs, even though this lead to separation or that separation be effected, without incurring liability for alienation, if the advice be given honestly with a view to the welfare of both parties. Beisel v. Gerlach, 221 Pa. 232, 60 A. 721, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 516; Leavell v. Leavell, 122 Mo.App. 654, 99 S.W. 460; Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Miss. 93, 19 So. 955, 32 L.R.A. 623; Tasker v. Stanley, 153 Mass. 148, 26 N.E. 417, 10 L.R.A. 468; Oakman v. Belden, 94 Me. 280, 47 A. 553, 80 Am. St.Rep. 396; Barton v. Barton, 119 Mo.App. 507, 94 S.W. 574; Hutcheson v. Peck, 5 Johns., N.Y., 196."

This court in the case of Moir v. Moir, 181 Iowa 1005, on page 1008, 165 N.W. 21, on page 222, again emphasizes this matter when it says: "The circumstance that a child is married does not sever the parents' relations with him. He may lawfully and is likely always to talk over his affairs and especially his troubles, even those relating to his domestic affairs with them, and...