Adams v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 31 March 1899 |
| Citation | 21 Wash. 29,56 P. 931 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. ABBOTT. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; William Hickman Moore Judge.
Action by Josephine A. Adams against Howard S. Abbott for alimony and to have certain real property adjudged to plaintiff. From a decree making a division of the property between the parties, and refusing to allow plaintiff alimony or maintenance, both parties appeal. Affirmed.
McClure & McClure, for plaintiff.
Ballinger Ronald & Battle, for defendant.
The plaintiff and defendant were married in June, 1878. They lived in Washington, D. C., until about July, 1882, and then moved to Kansas. In 1886 they moved from Kansas to Cheyenne Wyo., and, in 1888, moved to the territory of Washington. In November, 1892, they went to California, and in June, 1895 returned to Cheyenne. In September, 1895, defendant deserted plaintiff in Cheyenne, and returned to Washington, D. C., where he resided until September, 1896. After defendant deserted plaintiff, he refused to provide for her, with the intention of giving her cause for divorce. In June, 1896, while plaintiff was a resident of Wyoming and defendant a resident of Washington, D. C., plaintiff commenced an action for divorce in a Wyoming court, and in November, 1896, a decree of divorce was rendered, upon constructive service, made by publication pursuant to the laws of Wyoming. Plaintiff, in her petition for divorce, set forth the property acquired after marriage, and her separate property, and asked for an allowance for alimony and for general relief. Defendant did not appear in the action, though having actual notice of the proceedings, and the court granted only the prayer for divorce. Plaintiff, when abandoned in Wyoming, had no means of her own. Defendant has an income of $30 per month from a pension, and also some rents received from property in the city of Seattle. Defendant has for some time been a resident of this state. Plaintiff and defendant have real property situated in this state. This suit was instituted by plaintiff to have the real property situated in this state adjudged to her, and also an allowance for alimony and for attorney's fees. The superior court, after substantially finding the above facts, found that the defendant abandoned and deserted plaintiff, and neglected to provide for her the common necessaries of life, and that such neglect was not the result of poverty on the part of the defendant which he could not have avoided by ordinary industry; that defendant was in fault, and left plaintiff penniless and in a destitute condition, to be supported and maintained by her relatives; that the real property (describing it) in the state of Washington was acquired while plaintiff and defendant were residents of this state; that the court was unable to trace the separate property of either plaintiff or defendant in the acquirement of such real property, and therefore that it was community property. The court also concluded, considering the respective merits of the plaintiff and defendant, and the condition in which they were left by the decree of divorce granted to plaintiff by the district court of the state of Wyoming, to make a proper and equitable division of the property, which is decreed. The court did not allow the attorney's fees or any alimony or maintenance.
Upon an examination of the evidence in the record, we are not disposed to disturb the findings of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodda v. Rodda
...P. (2d) 49; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 54 Ohio App. 239, 6 N.E. (2d) 1005; Wick v. Wick, 58 Ohio App. 72, 15 N.E. (2d) 780; Adams v. Abbott, 21 Wash. 29, 56 P. 931; 2 Nelson on Divorce, § 14.21, p. 26. The principle on which the decisions are based is well set forth in the analogous case of ......
-
Simonton v. Simonton
...subsequent to that in which a divorce had been previously granted, such as Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Okla. 276, 181 P. 148, Adams v. Abbott, 21 Wash. 29, 56 P. 931, Cook Cook, 56 Wis. 195, 14 N.W. 33, Thurston v. Thurston, 58 Minn. 279, 59 N.W. 1017, and Toncray v. Toncray, 123 Tenn. 476, ......
-
In re Marriage of Kowalewski
...the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable"); Adams v. Abbott, 21 Wash. 29, 32-33, 56 P. 931 (1899). ¶ 20 In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court "has practically unlimited power over the property, when exercised wi......
-
Staub v. Staub
... ... courts of Ohio was upheld. Likewise the Supreme Court of ... Washington, in the case of Adams v. Abbott, 21 Wash ... 29, 56 P. 931, recognized the right of the former wife to ... maintain an action for alimony in the state of Washington ... ...