Youngs v. Youngs
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. John Francisco, Special Judge. (1) This kind of an action is only maintainable by reason of section 6856, Revised Statutes 1889. To constitute a cause of action under this statute, there must be an abandonment and a refusal or neglect to maintain and provide for the wife. The evidence in this case wholly fails to prove these two necessary elements ctf the action and plaintiff’s bill should have been dismissed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. John Francisco, Special Judge. (1) This kind of an action is only maintainable by reason of section 6856, Revised Statutes 1889. To constitute a cause of action under this statute, there must be an abandonment and a refusal or neglect to maintain and provide for the wife. The evidence in this case wholly fails to prove these two necessary elements ctf the action and plaintiff’s bill should have been dismissed. Droege v. Droege, 52 Mo. App. 84-90; State v. Weber, 48 Mo. App. 500. (2) The husband has the right to adopt the style of the living aud the…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
This is a suit by an abandoned wife for support and maintenance. The parties were married in tfye year 1884 and continued to live together until June, 1896, when the defendant abandoned the family home in Rich Hill, Missouri, and took up other quarters in the same city. The evidence discloses no cause for the separation — the wife, moreover, testifying that defendant had no cause whatever therefor. They had two children born of the marriage, and yet living — one a girl eleven years of age and the other a boy about ten years old., On a trial before a special judge the finding and judgment was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. WeberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. McCrory v. Bland.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1946
- Polster v. PolsterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- McPheeters v. McPheetersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Kindorf v. KindorfMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913