Young v. Young

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 35 P. 592,8 Wash. 81
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: YOUNG v. YOUNG ET AL.

35 P. 592

8 Wash. 81

YOUNG v. YOUNG ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Clarke county; E. A. Wiswall, Judge.

Action by Lucy Young against John Young and Mary Young. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

N.H. Bloomfield, M. J. McMahon, and Miller &amp Stapleton, for appellants.

W. H Metcalf and Dell Stuart, for respondent.

ANDERS J.

This action was brought by the respondent against the appellants to recover damages for causing her husband, who is a son of the appellants, to abandon her, and to refuse to live with her as her husband, or to provide a home for her, and for depriving her of his society and affection, and of support and maintenance. A trial was had, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff, to reverse which the defendants have appealed to this court.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, which motion was denied, and the defendants excepted. The appellants earnestly insist that this ruling was error, and we are inclined to agree with them. In our opinion, the evidence was so unsubstantial that it amounted to a mere probability in favor of plaintiff's cause of action, and therefore, in the language of the Code, wholly "failed to prove a sufficient cause for the jury." The facts disclosed by the record are briefly these: The respondent was married to Phillip Young on May 4, 1892, she being at that time 19 years old and he 24 years old. Immediately after their marriage the respondent and her husband went to reside with the appellants on their farm about a mile distant from the home of the respondent, and remained there together until March 19, 1893, at which time she returned to the home of her parents, where she afterwards remained, separate and apart from her husband, who continued thereafter, as before, to reside with the appellants. It is claimed by the respondent that her going away was not of her own volition, but that she went because the appellants refused to permit her longer to remain at their home. It is not shown, however, that any force or violence was used or threatened against her to cause her to leave, or that she was in any way maltreated or misused by appellants while she resided at their house. But their intercourse with each other was not always pleasant and amicable. Disputes and disagreements sometimes arose, for which one party was probably as much to blame as the other. On one occasion respondent took exception to some remarks concerning her father, made by one of appellants' children, and during the controversy Mary Young said to the respondent if she did not like the way the boys talked she could "pack up her things and get out." Respondent's husband told her to overlook this remark of his mother, which she did, and thereafter thought no more about it. This was about Christmas time, and no further trouble occurred until the 17th of March following. On that evening there was a dance at Grange Hall and Phillip asked Lucy to accompany him there. She at first consented, but when the time came to go she told Phillip she was not feeling very well, and would remain at home, and he went alone. During the evening, and after Phillip had gone the appellant John Young asked Lucy why she did not go to the dance, and she told him she did not feel well. He then said to her she did not look sick, and had not said anything about it before, and that it was not right to treat Phillip that way. She then replied that Phillip had no objection, and was willing that she should remain at home. The appellant Mrs. Young then remarked to Lucy that she had not done as a married woman should do in sending her husband off alone, and that it was not because she was sick at all, but because she had a stubborn head on her. The respondent retorted: "I have not been happy since I have been in this house. I have not seen a happy day since I have been here." This statement displeased Mr. Young, and he thereupon said to respondent, "If you haven't been happy, get up and get out." When Phillip came home Lucy told him what had occurred, and said she would go away the next morning. Phillip "cried and took on," and said, "Stay, and it will be all right in a few days." Respondent did not leave the next morning, however, but went down, and worked around in the kitchen, and finally told Mrs. Young she would overlook what had been said, and it would be all right; but Mrs. Young was not in a forgiving mood at that time, and bluntly remarked to Lucy that she would overlook nothing, and that she (Lucy) could pack up and get out. But Lucy evidently did not consider this remark of Mrs. Young as an imperative command to leave the premises, for she remained at work about the house all day. After the work was all done she went over to the house of her father and mother, informed them of her troubles, and, according to her own testimony, "told them to come over Sunday, and we would see what arrangements we could make; and if we did not...