150 Iowa 7 | Iowa | 1911
The defendants are husband and wife, and are the parents of Merle Busenbark, who is the husband of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her husband were married in Linn County on December 19, 1906. They were each about twenty-one years of age, and were without financial resources. Prior to the marriage the plaintiff taught school and made her home with her parents near Marion. Merle lived with his parents on a farm about nine miles from Marion. After the marriage, the young-couple made their home for the winter with the defendants. In the meantime with the help of the defendants, a farm was rented about eleven miles, distant, known as the “Woodward Place,” and they entered into occupancy of such farm about the last day of February. James Busenbark appears to have furnished the means with which to purchase t'he necessary personal property used on the plaee, including stock, and to have taken a bill of sale thereof
The claim in this case is that the affections of plaintiff’s husband were alienated from her by the defendants in pursuance of a conspiracy on their part to that effect. It is averred that to carry out such conspiracy “they adopted a systematic scheme of finding fault at all the acts of the plaintiff” and that in this way,- and by means “of promises and presents made to the said husband,” they
The first incident related occurred about a week after the young couple had gone into the home of the defendants. They did their washing one day, and the young husband offered “tov hang the clothes upon the line.” When his mother saw him engaged in this work she “scolded” the plaintiff in this wise: “She said that I should be out helping him; that he never had hung up clothes before, and he didn’t know how to do it, and he wouldn’t get it done right, and that I should help him.” A couple of weeks later “it was wash day again” and was a very cold day. The usual facilities for washing in the family were that the washing machine was attached to an engine in the engine shed just outside the kitchen. The washing machine was used in this shed where there was no fire, and the heating of the water and the boiling of the clothes was done in the kitchen. On this particular day, the plaintiff’s husband detached the washing machine from the engine and brought it into the kitchen and they did the washing in the kitchen, and “his mother scolded him because he did.” Then when his father came in his mother said, “Merle wouldn’t mind me,” and his father said if he “couldn’t do as his mother said, he should get out of there.” “She said that she didn’t want it in the house, that it was warm enough; that she washed out there, and that it wouldn’t hurt me; that it steamed up the house, and spoiled the furniture.” This language is the only interference complained of at this point. The washing was done in the house notwithstanding the objection.
In the course of the spring and summer the defendants visited the plaintiff and her husband at the Woodward farm a few times. The conduct of the mother-in-law on these occasions, is set forth by the plaintiff in her testimony as follows: “Every time she came she found fault with the way I was doing my work or something that I was not taking care of, or that I shouldn’t use a tablecloth every day. Said she ate off an oil cloth, and that I shouldn’t use the silverware every day; that it would spoil it; and wanted to know if I had polished my silverware; and that she would meddle about making my butter, that I didn’t know how to make butter; said that I wasn’t letting my milk stand long enough to, get all the cream.” This is amplified in her later testimony as follows: “From the time that we went there until the time that we moved she was always asking how much money I had, how much I had laid up, how much my parents had, and telling me I ought to have different articles, and that I should furnish them myself. She was speaking of buying me a tub to wash with. We told her she didn’t need to do
The last incident complained of occurred at threshing time when the mother-in-law went to the Woodward place to assist the plaintiff in the cooking. The plaintiff testified: “I had my dinner planned before she came there and knew what I was going to have for dinner, and among other things I was going to have blackberries raw, and she said I should cook them; that it would take too much sugar to sweeten them; that it wouldn’t take so much sugar if I cooked them. I was going to have cucumbers, and she didn’t think the men would like them — she said Jim didn’t like them; and I Avas going to have tapioca pudding, and she said I oughtn’t to have that because her husband didn’t like it. I asked her to cook the meat,
The foregoing comprises all' the testimony in the record which pretends to set forth any specific wrongful conduct on the part of the mother-in-láw. The testimony of plaintiff abounds in such expressions as, “She was continually nagging me.” She testified also that her husband cried all night after the washing machine incident,' and that he told her at different times that his mother was a “mischief maker” and “couldn’t get along with any one.” He also praised her cooking notwithstanding his mother’s criticisms. The incidents which are described as above set forth in plaintiff’s testimony appear to us as very commonplace. They may have been unwise and lacking in delicacy and tenderness, but there is nothing to indicate that they were otherwise than the natural expressions of solicitude of this mother-in-law. Parents often annoy their children with advice, good and bad. The good is often quite as annoying as the bad. This mother-in-law seems to have fought the battle of thrift in a certain way, and she was quite sure that it was the only safe way. The plaintiff was manifestly cast in a gentler mold, and was perhaps nervous and sensitive. Such expressions as “she was always nagging me” may be quite as descriptive of her own sensibilities as of any wrongful conduct on the part 'of her mother-in-law. This is especially so in view of. the meager showing of specific conduct in this case.' It may be that the mother-in-law was too severe in her expectations and in her advice, and that in her search for signs of thrift and promise of success, she was too easily disappointed. But we see nothing in this testimony from which a jury could say that she was acting in bad faith, or that she was doing these things with a malicious purpose to accomplish the separation of the young pair. If we
The plea of the mother-in-law for economic methods was in no sense inconsistent with her good faith even though unduly severe. We see nothing in this record which could give rise to any inference of malice as distinguished from a mere lack of judgment or lack of appreciation of the difference between plaintiff and herself as to temperament and taste and education. It was perhaps indelicate to ask the plaintiff how much money she had and how much her parents had, but it was not malicious. All the evidence tends to support the legal presumption in her favor, and tends to show that she really wanted to know. A discreeter person perhaps would have found out in a more indirect way. A new family had been organized, and the means and method of subsistence were a very important consideration whether expressed or not. The problem of the household is multifarious in its details. “Cream and sugar” are expensive; “silverware” must be polished; the “asbestos pad” has its important function; and the “tablecloth” has its perplexities. Is there any mother of grown-up boys and girls in moderate means who has not laid parental injunction at all these points ? Nor are we able to see in this testimony anything that would justify a finding that the mother’s mistakes, if any, caused the separation. Most of the incidents testified to occurred in the son’s absence.
It is urged upon our attention that at one time the parents promised to get him an automobile and that he was
II. Turning, now, to the evidence relating to the defendant James Busenbark, it is even more meager than that against his wife. The only incident, shown against the father-in-law prior to the date of the final separation is that concerning the washing machine to which reference has already been made, when he said to Merle that “if he couldn’t do as his mother said, he should get out of there.” The other incident upon' which the liability of this defendant is predicated occurred on the morning of the 23d of September when the household goods were divided between the parties. Bor two or three days prior to this date, the plaintiff had remained at the home of her parents, and her husband had remained -at the home of his parents. They had separated subject to the possible compromise on the Stringer place. On that morning the father accompanied Merle to the Woodward place. After they arrived there the' plaintiff with' her father arrived. Her testimony is that at that time she said to her husband: “Isn’t there something we can do to not break up our home ? If I get down on my knees, would it do any good ?’ He said: ‘It’s too late; I have done all I can. -It would be a disgrace not to put the sale bills up now.’ ” She also testified as follows: “My father was with me and he asked Mr. Busenbark, the defendant, what was the
Some of this was harsh judgment, but its expression was not volunteered, nor can it be said upon this record that it had anything to do with causing the alienation of affection complained of. The same witness testified concerning Merle’s conduct on the same occasion as follows: “I heard Elva, my daughter, begging' him not to dismantle the home, not to break up and divide things, and he said that it was too late; that the sale bills were advertised; and that it would be a disgrace to disappoint the people now; that they would laugh at him. This is what my daughter’s husband said. She also said at the same time that she would go anywhere with him,- even down there near his folks if he would stand by her. To this he wouldn’t make any reply.”
The burden was upon the plaintiff to show more than mere wrongdoing on the part of the defendants. It was
The order of the trial court is therefore affirmed.