Worley v. Worley, 6453.

Citation176 S.W.2d 74
Decision Date08 December 1943
Docket NumberNo. 6453.,6453.
PartiesWORLEY v. WORLEY.
CourtMissouri 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"Not to be published in State Reports."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.

FULBRIGHT, Judge.

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.

"Plaintiff further alleges that at the time of the marriage the defendant was not strong mentally and could not much more than write her name; that her sister wrote her letters for her; that within a month after plaintiff and defendant met, they were married; that defendant's mother, Lilly Reeves, and her sister, Glenora Reeves, fraudulently arranged for the marriage and got this plaintiff to make the contract; that defendant's mother knew this plaintiff was a farm hand and knew that defendant was not a suitable wife and could not do the work that would be necessary and well knew that her mind was not strong, but that she was weak minded and feeble minded.

"Plaintiff further alleges that defendant, through her sister and mother, perpetrated a fraud and wrote the letters when defendant could not much more than read or write.

"Plaintiff further alleges that defendant would go out in the pasture, when he was working, and lie down and stay four or five hours at a time and would not prepare the meals for this plaintiff; that defendant would go over to the neighbor's house and stay most of the time and would sit in a chair and sleep at the neighbor's house when the neighbor was out working; that when plaintiff would go to the pasture to find defendant, she would often hide and he could not find her.

"Plaintiff further alleges that defendant, because of the weakness of her mind prior to the marriage and which continued during the time she was with this plaintiff, would be on the farm like she was wild and would run through the cattle and around the farm, and this plaintiff could seldom find her at home.

"Plaintiff further alleges that, at the time of the marriage, because of the letters that had been written by defendant's sister, he was under the belief that her mind was sound and she was capable, and thought she was competent to enter a marriage contract.

"Plaintiff further alleges that, because of the fraudulent misrepresentations, made prior to the marriage, plaintiff was induced to enter into said contract.

"Plaintiff further alleges that defendant is a resident of Iron County, Missouri, and that he is a resident of Phelps County, Missouri, and that he has been a resident of the State of Missouri more than one (1) whole year prior to the filing of this petition."

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: "Q. Did she have mind enough to do any kind of work at all?" 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, "washed yesterday and ironed today. * * * you know, she's just been the best girl the last few days. * * * I have just given Helen a lisson on how to turn a pair of socks together." 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 "we live in a forty-acre cow pasture so our yard is the only means of an early letuce and redish bed. * * * We don't mind the cows, though we only milk one now. * * Helen sure is getting to be a good cook. Mom, I am sorry to write this but I feel that you are disappointed with me because I don't get out there, but you know, a feller has to make his home like a home before he can visit much."

Defendant's assignment of errors is as follows:

"I. The Court erred in assuming jurisdiction of the cause and in granting to the plaintiff the relief prayed for in his petition, for the reason the petition and summons show on their face that the Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the petition.

"II. The Court erred in hearing testimony offered by the plaintiff, because the petition of plaintiff did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"III. The Court erred in annuling the marriage and granting the relief prayed for in plaintiff's petition, because the proof offered by the plaintiff was not clear, satisfactory and convincing, as required by law in a case of this nature."

In her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Greene v. Morse
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 30 Enero 1964
    ......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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 8 Diciembre 1947
    ......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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 19 Agosto 1954
    ......, 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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 16 Enero 1962
    ......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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT