Worth v. Worth, 1997

• Decision Date: 08 June 1937
• Docket Number: 1997
• Citation: 51 Wyo. 488,68 P.2d 881
• Parties: WORTH v. WORTH, ET AL
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

68 P.2d 881

51 Wyo. 488

WORTH v. WORTH, ET AL

No. 1997

Supreme Court of Wyoming

June 8, 1937

Rehearing denied without Opinion on August 31, 1937.

APPEAL from the District Court of Laramie County; V. J. TIDBALL Judge.

Action by Margery Worth against G. M. Worth and Kate Worth. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

For the defendants and appellants, there was a brief and oral argument by C. R. Ellery and John C. Pickett of Cheyenne.

The evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Worth v Worth, 48 Wyo. 441; Kleist v. Breitung, 232 F. 555; Spiry v. Spiry, (S. D.) 199 N.W. 778; Williamson v. Williamson, (Nebr.) 231 N.W. 506; Beckler v. Yates, 89 S.W.2d 650; Miller v. Miller, (Md.) 169 A. 426. The insufficiency of the evidence relating to G. M. Worth is applicable to the defendant Kate Worth. The verdict was the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. The record offers no support for the jury's valuation of Harold's affections at $ 7,500.00. Heisler v. Heisler, (Iowa) 127 N.W. 823; Thompson v. Thompson, (Wash.) 6 P.2d 617; Stevens v. Depue, (Wash.) 276 P. 882; Worth v. Worth, 48 Wyo. 441; McLery v. McLery, (Wis.) 202 N.W. 156; Miller v. Levine, (Me.) 154 A. 174; McCollister v. McCollister, (Me.) 138 A. 472; Paup v. Pau, (Iowa) 225 N.W. 251; Spiry v. Spiry, (S.D.) 199 N.W. 778. The Stocker case frequently referred to by counsel for respondent in the former appeal, and we assume will be relied upon in the brief of appellee in the present appeal bears no analogy to the case at bar upon the facts as presented in this record.

For the plaintiff and respondent, there was a brief and oral argument by R. R. Rose of Casper, Wyoming.

A careful analysis of the record will make it clear, we think, that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Malice is a fact, the existence or nonexistence of which is to be determined by the jury. It may be inferred from wrongful or unjustifiable acts. 13 R. C. L. 1471; Brown v. Brown, 32 S.E. 320; Jones v. Jones, 164 P. 757. So long as the possibility of reconciliation existed, defendant had no right to interfere. Lupton v. Underwood, 85 A. 965; Moelleur v. Moelleur, 173 P. 419. Rules of law must be considered with reference to the facts of the particular case. Williamson v. Williamson, (Nebr.) 231 N.W. 506; Stilwell v. Stilwell, 172 N.W. 177; Smith v. Smith, 159 N.W. 349; Clark v. Clark, (Ind.) 118 N.E. 123. A verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, where there is competent evidence, reasonably construed, to sustain it, unless clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Worland v. Davis, 31 Wyo. 108; Murphy v. W. & W. Livestock Co., 26 Wyo. 455; Montgomery v. Empey, 36 Wyo. 37. A long succession of abuses culminating in accusations against plaintiff's character for chastity, was sufficient to warrant a verdict. Heisler v. Heisler, supra; Rath v. Rath, (Neb.) 89 N.W. 612; Nevins v. Nevins, (Kans.) 75 P. 492; Lannigan v. Lannigan, (Mass.) 110 N.E. 285. The case of Stocker v. Stocker, 36 A. L. R. 1063, is on all fours with the case at bar. Defendant's wrong is established by wrongful conduct of G. M. Worth and he contributed to the result. Plourd v. Jarvis, (Me.) 58 A. 774; Knapp v. Knapp, (Mo.) 183 S.W. 576; Lupton v. Underwood, supra; Wendt v. Wendt, (Nebr.) 184 N.W. 66; Sullivan v. Valiquette, 180 P. 91. The court's instruction as to controlling cause was correct. Rath v. Rath, supra. As to the evidence of malice, we cite Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621; Jones v. Jones, 164 P. 757; Brown v. Brown, (N. C.) 70 A. S. R. 575. As to damages we cite McAllister v. McAllister, 209 P. 788; Lupton v. Underwood, supra; Nevins v. Nevins, supra; 30 C. J. 1148. In Stocker v. Stocker, the court refused to reduce the $ 10,000 verdict. In Gross v. Gross, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 281, the court refused to set aside a $ 12,000 verdict on similar facts. Other cases holding verdicts not excessive are: Woodhouse v. Woodhouse, (Vt.) 130 A. 758; Wallace v. Wallace, 66 A. L. R. 587; McAllister v. McAllister, (Colo.) 209 P. 788; Lockwood v. Lockwood, (Minn.) 70 N.W. 784; Renner v. Renner, (N. J.) 136 A. 707; Lyen v. Lyen, (Wash.) 167 P. 1113; Stocker v. Stocker, 36 A. L. R. 1063; Cochran v. Cochran, 24 L. R. A. 169; Melcher v. Melcher, 4 A. L. R. 492. Plaintiff was entitled under the evidence in this case to punitive damages. Nelson v. Nelson, 296 F. 269; Wallace v. Wallace, 66 A. L. R. 587; Pugsley v. Smyth, 194 P. 686; Linden v. McClintock, 187 S.W. 82; Melcher v. Melcher, 4 A. L. R. 492.

RINER, Justice. KIMBALL, J., concurs. BLUME, Ch. J., concurs in the disposition of the case as to the defendant Kate Worth but dissents as to its affirmance against the defendant G. M. Worth.

OPINION

RINER, Justice.

This case comes before this court again on direct appeal proceedings to review a judgment of the district court of Laramie County. As case No. 1881, appealed from a judgment therein by the district court of Platte County, it was by an opinion filed here October 1, 1935, (Worth v. Worth, 48 Wyo. 441, 49 P.2d 649), returned to that court for a new trial. Subsequently, upon stipulation of the parties, the venue was changed to the district court of Laramie County, where the case was retried before the court, with a jury in attendance, commencing on the 26th day of February, 1936.

In this second trial the jury again found for the plaintiff, the daughter-in-law, against the parents of her husband, Harold Worth, who are the defendants G. M. Worth and Kate Worth, returning a verdict in the sum of $ 7,500.00, upon which the court entered the judgment aforesaid.

The opinion heretofore rendered by this court in the case considered sundry errors of law in connection with instructions refused and rulings relating to evidence. On the new record now before us but three questions are argued and submitted for our disposition, viz.: (1) Was there substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury; (2) Was the verdict of the jury the result of passion and prejudice; and, (3) Is the verdict and judgment excessive?

While the question of the sufficiency of the evidence was argued at length upon the previous hearing, we did not undertake to rule on that matter, although some comments were made. A brief outline simply of the facts presented then was given. Due to the nature of the questions at this time presented, it becomes necessary to review more in detail the evidence now set forth in the record and especially that in behalf of the plaintiff, Margery Worth, whose testimony and evidence a second time has received the favorable verdict of a jury.

Plaintiff and her husband were married on December 23, 1927. At that time she was teaching school and continued so to do until May 20, 1928. Her husband at the time of their marriage was working in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and immediately thereafter was employed in the Sunrise iron mines until March 1, 1928, when at the request of the defendants, he went to work on their ranch in the vicinity of Wheatland. His parents promised him that he would receive as compensation the money necessary for living expenses and the balance in the form of an interest in livestock. Upon the close of her school term Margery joined her husband at the ranch home of the defendants. She had theretofore objected to this arrangement as unwise, pointing out that two families thus situated frequently do not get along well, but her objections were met by the parents' suggestion that the house was large and it could be divided so that the young folks would have their own apartment. The suggested plan was not carried out, however, until June, 1929.

Harold and his wife subsequent to their arrival at the ranch and for nearly a year thereafter, therefore, lived with the defendants as one family. There do not appear to have been any difficulties until the fall of the year 1928, when the defendants began to complain nearly every day of plaintiff not doing the work, she undertaking then to perform practically all the housework, cooking and taking care of the poultry. At this time but one hired man was employed on the ranch, although there were occasions when more were employed. When these criticisms were directed at the young wife she had become pregnant, and about half the time, as she says, it was very hard for her to do the work and she was ill frequently. She continued, however, to carry on the housework until about a week before the child was born. During this period continued and additional criticism seems to have been directed against Margery by both Mr. and Mrs. Worth, in the presence of their son Harold, reflecting on plaintiff's family, to the effect that she had not come from a very good family, that they had nothing in a financial way and did not amount to much.

The expectant mother planned a layette for the child and made a list of the things she would need. Mrs. Kate Worth watched Margery prepare the list and afterwards had a conversation with Harold in an adjoining room, overheard by the latter's wife, in which Harold's mother complained of the list as too expensive. The amount to be expended had theretofore been agreed upon between the young folks as the sum of $ 10.00. After talking with his mother Harold immediately returned to his wife, and, pursuant to the mother's directions, told the wife that she was buying too extravagantly and getting a lot of things that she did not need, asking her, with some profanity, if she did not intend to do any washing. The young husband at this time appears to have reflected the criticisms of his wife suggested by his parents, as he told her that she was lazy, that she had no interest in her home or in him, and that all she thought of was parties...