Ostheimer v. Ostheimer
| Decision Date | 15 November 1904 |
| Citation | 125 Iowa 523,101 N.W. 275 |
| Parties | OSTHEIMER v. OSTHEIMER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; J. H. Richard, Judge.
The opinion states the case. Affirmed.
Albrook & Lundy, for appellant.
Ward & Hays, for appellee.
The parties were formerly husband and wife. In the year 1899 they were divorced at the suit of plaintiff. The defendant was at that time a farmer, with an estate of $3,000 or less, and the parties had two children of tender years. By the decree of divorce, plaintiff was awarded the custody of the children, and as alimony the sum of $900 in money, with some specific items of personal property, of small value. The present proceeding is instituted by plaintiff to obtain an increase of alimony, for the better support of the children. The trial court granted her petition, and adjudged that the defendant pay her for that purpose the sum of $5 per week until otherwise ordered. The defendant appeals.
The power of the court to grant relief of this kind cannot be denied, so far, at least, as relates to the custody and maintenance of the children. Code, § 3180. And the question whether the circumstances shown in the testimony were such as to justify the judgment appealed from is purely one of fact. The original allowance to the plaintiff, we may assume, was fair and adequate, under the circumstances then existing; but if, owing to a change of conditions, the defendant is now more able, and the plaintiff is comparatively less able, to properly provide for their children, it is both humane and just that he be required to contribute further to that purpose. The decree which divorced him from his wife did not cancel his natural and legal obligations to his children. The evidence tends strongly to show that financially he is in fairly prosperous circumstances. At the time of the trial he was shown to be engaged in buying, selling, and fattening cattle and hogs in unusually large numbers; and, while like most men in that line of business, he appears to be a large borrower and to be carrying a large aggregate of indebtedness, it is very clear that he has substantially increased his holdings, and is in much better condition to assist in the support of his children than he was at the date of the divorce. On the other hand, it is shown, without dispute, that the plaintiff is in straitened circumstances, and needs assistance to adequately supply the wants of the children. The allowance made by the trial court, while large enough to afford material aid in providing for the children, is not so large that a man of the circumstances and means the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial