Wathen v. Wathen

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wathen v. Wathen

73 S.W. 736, 101 Mo. App. 286, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 388

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.W. 736 (Wathen v. Wathen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wathen v. Wathen, 73 S.W. 736, 101 Mo. App. 286, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

GrOODE, J.

The parties to this action were married May 14, 1901, and lived together until August 22d thereafter when, the petition alleges, the defendant left home and has since continuously absented himself from [287]*287the plaintiff without cause for more than one year. The action was began by personal service on the defendant, bat he filed no' answer and made no appearance.

At the conclasion of the testimony for the plaintiff, the circaifc coart dismissed her bill withoat prejadice and an appeal was taken from that judgment to this coart.

We have perused the evidence and are disinclined to interfere with the decision below. In oar opinion the testimony warrants the inference, if it does not compel it, that these parties separated by mataal consent and that there was in no proper sense a desertion or abandonment of plaintiff by defendant. She testified that defendant always treated her well and they got along together pleasantly antil a few weeks before the alleged desertion, when she proseeated an investigation to see whether he was doing night work as he said he was, and finding oat that he was not, she grew very angry with him. This quarrel apparently led to the separation. Plaintiff farther testified she did not care mach aboat his leaving her and made no inqairy for him, bat that she woald have lived with him if he had stayed at home.

The proof of désertion, considered in its best phase, is very weak and we affirm the judgment.

All concar.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GrOODE, J.

The parties to this action were married May 14, 1901, and lived together until August 22d thereafter when, the petition alleges, the defendant left home and has since continuously absented himself from [287]*287the plaintiff without cause for more than one year. The action was began by personal service on the defendant, bat he filed no' answer and made no appearance.

At the conclasion of the testimony for the plaintiff, the circaifc coart dismissed her bill withoat prejadice and an appeal was taken from that judgment to this coart.

We have perused the evidence and are disinclined to interfere with the decision below. In oar opinion the testimony warrants the inference, if it does not compel it, that these parties separated by mataal consent and that there was in no proper sense a desertion or abandonment of plaintiff by defendant. She testified that defendant always treated her well and they got along together pleasantly antil a few weeks before the alleged desertion, when she proseeated an investigation to see whether he was doing night work as he said he was, and finding oat that he was not, she grew very angry with him. This quarrel apparently led to the separation. Plaintiff farther testified she did not care mach aboat his leaving her and made no inqairy for him, bat that she woald have lived with him if he had stayed at home.

The proof of désertion, considered in its best phase, is very weak and we affirm the judgment.

All concar.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.W. 736, 101 Mo. App. 286, 1903 Mo. App. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wathen-v-wathen-moctapp-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack