Worley v. Worley, 6453.
Citation | 176 S.W.2d 74 |
Decision Date | 08 December 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 6453.,6453. |
Parties | WORLEY v. WORLEY. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Phelps County; William E. Barton, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Proceeding in equity by Orville Sylvester Worley against Helen Margaret Worley to annul the marriage of the parties on ground of mental incapacity on part of defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. Arthur Francis, of Ironton, and Arthur T. Brewster, of Pevely, for appellant.
Earl E. Roberts, of Steelville, and Haymes & Dickey, of Springfield, for respondent.
This is a proceeding in equity to annul the marriage of Orville Sylvester Worley, plaintiff, and Helen Margaret Worley, defendant, on the ground of mental incapacity on the part of the latter. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Plaintiff's petition alleges that the marriage occurred on the first day of March, 1942, in Crawford County and that the parties lived together as husband and wife until the 23rd day of May, 1942.
Defendant's answer admits the marriage on March 1, 1942, but denies each and every other allegation in the petition contained.
The evidence shows that plaintiff and defendant were married March 1, 1942; that most of the courtship was through letters. Their first meeting and acquaintance was about four or five weeks preceding the marriage, and plaintiff had met her only four or five times, all of which meetings were at Zinn's Tavern in Steelville, Missouri. Plaintiff wrote defendant several letters during this time and finally wrote and told her he would meet her and they would be married. Pursuant to this proposal they got married March 1, 1942, at Steelville, in Crawford County, Missouri. Plaintiff had never seen any of the handwriting of defendant, not even her signature, and believed all the time that the letters he received were written and signed by her. After the marriage defendant told plaintiff she did not write the letters, and he discovered they were all written by her sister. Plaintiff soon began to detect that something was wrong with her but wasn't certain of the condition of her mind. He then determined, in five or six weeks, that "there was something bad wrong, but I didn't know what," but concluded she was feeble-minded; "that she couldn't remember what anybody would tell her; that she would come to him every morning and ask him how much soda to put in the bread, and she could not remember what one-half teaspoon of anything was; that she couldn't add three and one; that she didn't know when Christmas was." When he determined that there was "something wrong somewhere" he took her to Dr. Brewer, a reputable and capable physician connected with the hospital at Rolla, Missouri, and upon examination Dr. Brewer found defendant was mentally deficient or feeble-minded; that the condition was of long standing and permanent. The examination was made some five or six weeks after the marriage.
About a week after the marriage, G. O. Bell, on whose farm plaintiff was working, went with him to bring defendant to the home plaintiff had provided for her. The house they lived in was back in the pasture where there were cattle running, including a male animal. He stated that he frequently saw defendant "out there among those brutes just fooling around, where it looked to him a very dangerous place; * * * he saw her very often, about every day; that she was over at his home every day or so, and would just set down and sleep for two or three hours at a time." Witness Bell was asked the following question: To which he replied: "Well, she couldn't do very much, I can tell you that." He testified that he thought she was feeble-minded.
Plaintiff also introduced in evidence the letters he received from defendant, three of them prior to their marriage and one afterward. They are of little probative force.
The only evidence offered by defendant was three letters written to her mother, one of which purports to have been written by defendant, but all, in fact, were written by plaintiff. In one of the letters it is stated that Helen, the defendant, The letter which purports to be from Helen expresses disappointment because the mother had not come to visit them and states: "I have been cleaning up the yard today." The third letter purports to have been signed by "Orville and Helen". In it the mother is told about the furniture they have bought and the clothing that Helen had ordered; that they had their garden in their back yard; that
Defendant's assignment of errors is as follows:
In her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greene v. Morse
......Treadway, Mo.App., 270 S.W.2d 614, 621(13); Worley v. Worley, Mo.App., 176 S.W.2d 74, 77(4); Elmore v. Cox, Mo.App., 9 S.W.2d . Page 418. 681, ......
-
State ex rel. Thompson v. Terte
......139; Choteau v. Gibson, 76 Mo. 38; State v. Windsor, 289 S.W. 663; 34 C.J. 884-85; Worley v. Worley, 176 S.W.2d. 74. (8) The judgment of dismissal without prejudice as to Guy. A. ......
-
Emerson v. Treadway
......, 26 S.W.2d 946, 949(4)], and the petition should be construed most favorably to plaintiff [Worley v. Worley, Mo.App. 176 S.W.2d 74, 77(4); Elmore v. Cox, Mo.App., 9 S.W.2d 681, 683(2)]. If the ......
-
Hutchinson v. Steinke, s. 30642
......Field, supra; Buerck v. Mid-Nation Iron Products Co., 295 Mo. 263, 245 S.W. 45; Worley v. Worley, Mo.App., 176 S.W.2d 74; by filing an application for a change of venue, Cook v. Globe ......