Family: Frederick D. Drollinger / Elsa A. "Elsie" Cronk (F5862)
m. 18 Oct 1909
-
Male
Frederick D. Drollinger
Birth 17 Apr 1887 Veedersburg, Fountain, IN 
Death 6 Jan 1914 Cain Twp, Fountain County, IN Burial Marriage 18 Oct 1909 Fountain County, IN Divorced 15 Oct 1914 Fountain County, IN Father Samuel Drollinger | F1041 Group Sheet Mother Margaret Jane Richardson | F1041 Group Sheet
Female
Elsa A. "Elsie" Cronk
Birth 18 Nov 1886 Hillsboro, Fountain, IN Death 2 May 1940 Chicago, Cook, IL Burial Homewood, Cook, IL Other Spouse Arthur Melville Lightle | F3257 Marriage 15 Jul 1903 Fountain County, IN Other Spouse Otto Taylor | F11774 Marriage Abt 1916 Father Allen P. Cronk | F5861 Group Sheet Mother Susan Eldora "Dora" Wallace | F5861 Group Sheet
Male
Unknown Drollinger
Birth 25 May 1911 Cates, Fountain, IN Death 25 May 1911 Cates, Fountain, IN Burial
Female
Unknown Drollinger
Birth 25 May 1911 Cates, Fountain, IN Death 25 May 1911 Cates, Fountain, IN Burial
-
Notes Married:
- Indiana, Marriages, 1810-2001
Name: Fred Drollinger
Gender: Male
Race: White
Age: 22
Event Type: Marriage Registration (Marriage)
Birth Date: 17 Apr 1887
Birth Place: Veedersburg, Indiana
Marriage Licence Date: 18 Oct 1909
Marriage Licence Place: Indiana, United States
Residence Place: Veedersburg, Indiana
Father: Samuel Drollinger
Mother: Margret Stepheson
Spouse: Elsie Lightle
Page: 359
FHL Film Number: 001321669
Indiana, Marriages, 1810-2001
Name: Elsie Lightle
[Elsie Cronk]
Gender: Female
Race: White
Age: 21
Event Type: Marriage Registration (Marriage)
Birth Date: 18 Nov 1887
Birth Place: Hillsboro, Indiana
Marriage Licence Date: 18 Oct 1909
Marriage Licence Place: Indiana, United States
Residence Place: Veedersburg, Indiana
Father: Allen Cronk
Mother: Dora Wallace
Spouse: Fred Drollinger
Page: 359
FHL Film Number: 001321669
Divorced:
- The Northeastern reporter, Volume 106 By West Publishing Company, Page 428, Drollinger vs. Drollinger, Appeal from Circuit Court, Fountain County, Oct 15, 1914. Elsie Drollinger originally sued Frederick D. Drollinger for divorce and won alimony. However, because she had committed adultery, the appelate court reversed the original court finding and did not award her alimony as a result of her adultery. Frederick is listed as "Frederick D. Drollinger" and Elsie is listed as "Elsie Drollinger". Also, the judgment mentions the death of Frederick since the trial.
Copy of full text below:
(57 Ind. App. 115) DROLLINGER T. DROLLINGER. (No. 8436.)
(Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No 2. Oct 15, 1914.)
Di Vobce (J 235*) Alimony Unfaithful Wife.
Where, in a wife's action for divorce, a divorce is granted to the husband on his cross-bill on proof of the wife's infidelity, an order allowing her alimony is an abuse of discretion.
[Ed. Note.?For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. § 665; Dec. Dig. §235.*]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fountain County; I. E. Schoonover, Judge.
Suit by Elsie A. Drollinger against Frederick D. Drollinger for divorce. A decree of absolute divorce was granted to defendant on his cross-bill, and from so much of the decree as allowed plaintiff alimony, he appeals. Reversed.
Valentine E. Livengood, of Covington, for appellant
IBACH, P. J. Appellee brought this action against appellant for a divorce on the grounds of cruel and Inhuman treatment Appellant filed a cross-complaint asking a divorce on the ground that appellee had been guilty of adultery. The court granted appellant a divorce on his cross-complaint, and allowed appellee $500 alimony; the evidence showing that appellant was worth about $1,400.
The court erred in allowing alimony, since the finding in appellant's favor on his cross complaint is a finding that appellee was guilty of adultery, the only ground for divorce therein alleged. A court that grants alimony to a wife who has yielded her person to intercourse with a man not her husband abuses its discretion. No alimony should be allowed in such cases. This proposition is well settled by the decision in the case of Spaulding v. Spaulding, 133 Ind. 122, 32 N. E.224, 36 Am. St. Rep. 534, and is also supported by the following authorities: Spitler v. Spitler, 108 111. 120; Goldsmith v. Goldsmith,6 Mich. 285; Robards v. Robards (Ky.) 110 S. W. 422; Dollius v. Dolllns (Ky.) 83 S. W. 95; 1 Bishop, Marriage and Divorce, | 861. The court should have sustained appellant's motion to annul and modify the judgment for alimony.
Appellee has not briefed the case, and has not resisted the appeal.
The judgment is reversed, with Instructions to sustain appellant's motion to modify so much of the decree as awards alimony, and to vacate and annul that allowance As to all other matters, the decree is affirmed, and, as the death of appellant since the trial has been suggested, this mandate is to be effective as of date of submission.
- Indiana, Marriages, 1810-2001