48 Neb. 794 | Neb. | 1896
Evaline Heist brought this suit in the district court of Hamilton county against David R. Heist, her husband, for divorce from the bonds of matrimony. She had a
Mrs. Heist claimed to be entitled to a divorce from her husband because of extreme cruelty practiced by him towards her. Some of the specific acts of cruelty charged to the husband were that he had required of his wife, though a frail woman and in delicate health, the performance of heavy work in and out doors; that he had used towards his wife coarse and vile language; that on one occasion he had violently dragged her out of bed, thereby inflicting on her great pain and injury; that he had told his wife that he did not care for her; that he had an object in view in marrying her and when this object was accomplished she would leave; that on one occasion he had seized his wife while she was seated at the breakfast table and dragged her to the door of the house and told her to leave; that he had refused to permit their children, though they were able and willing, to assist her in the performance of certain household duties; that he had, in the presence of their children, called her vile and abusive names, among others, a “bitch;” that when the wife was weak and sick and in need of help to do her household work, the husband had refused to procure help for her, but harshly and cruelly told her if she could not do the work to leave. There were other acts of cruelty charged to the husband in the petition. His answer, in addition to a general denial of all the allegations of cruelty, set up the defense that in May, 1892, his wife had abandoned him without any just cause or provocation, and that in said month, at the intercession of their mutual friends, the husband and wife had met and talked over their family difficulties; that a reconciliation between them took place, and that all wrongs that the wife had suffered by reason of the husband’s conduct she had then and there freely and voluntarily forgiven, and had then returned to his house and lived and cohabited with him until November, 1892, when, without any just provocation, she again abandoned him. To this defense of con-
1. The first assignment of error argued here is that the decree of the district court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. We shall not quote this evidence, nor any part of it, but it supports the allegations of the petition. It is insisted, however, that the cruelty charged to the husband was condoned by the wife early in May, 1892, and that the conduct of the husband towards the wife subsequent to that time, as shown by the evidence, is not sufficient to sustain the decree. Condonation is forgiveness for the past upon condition that the wrongs shall not be repeated; it is dependent upon future good conduct, and a repetition of the offense revives the wrong, condoned.
2. A second argument insisted on here is that the amount of alimony awarded the wife by the decree is excessive. The court found specially that the value of the property owned by the husband was $4,500 over and above all incumbrances thereon. The record does not show that the wife owned any property whatever. By the decree of the court the custody of the minor children was awarded to the wife, and the court also awarded her as alimony $2,250, payable in six annual installments. There is no fixed rule for determining what portion of the husband’s estate should be decreed to his wife for alimony. The amount should be just and equitable, due regard being had for the rights of each party, the ability of the husband, the estate of the wife, and the character and situation of the parties. (Cochran v. Cochran, 42 Neb., 612, and cases there cited.) The decree of the district court is right and is in all things
Affirmed.