Adamson v. Snider

• Decision Date: 11 October 1930
• Docket Number: 29,285
• Citation: 291 P. 744,131 Kan. 284
• Parties: L. P. ADAMSON, as Executor and Administrator of the Estate of Amanda B. Snider, Deceased, Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. SNIDER, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

291 P. 744

131 Kan. 284

L. P. ADAMSON, as Executor and Administrator of the Estate of Amanda B. Snider, Deceased, Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. SNIDER, Appellant

No. 29,285

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 11, 1930

Decided July, 1930.

Appeal from Crawford district court, division No. 2; GEORGE F BEEZLEY, judge.

Appeal dismissed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL -- Divorce -- Survival of Action on Death of Spouse. An action for divorce, in so far as it involves solely the marital status of the parties, does not survive the death of one of the parties pending the action.

Charles Stephens, F. E. Dresia, both of Columbus, and Thomas W Clark, of Pittsburg, for the appellant.

A. J. Curran, of Pittsburg, for the appellee.

OPINION

HARVEY, J.:

Amanda B. Snider brought in the district court of Crawford county an action for divorce, on the ground of extreme cruelty, against her husband, William L. Snider, who was a resident of Cherokee county. Issues were joined and the action was tried on its merits July 9, 1929, and judgment was rendered granting plaintiff a divorce and decreeing to her a part of the property which had been accumulated by the parties during their marriage. On July 10, 1929, defendant gave notice, as provided by R. S. 60-1512, of his intention to appeal. Amanda B. Snider died testate August 5, 1929. Her will was duly probated and L. P. Adamson was appointed and duly qualified as executor. On September 10, 1929, William L. Snider gave notice of appeal to the attorneys of record who had represented the plaintiff and to her executor. He also filed a supersedeas bond. There appears to have been no attempt to revive the action in the trial court. On November 9, 1929, a formal motion to revive the action in the name of the executor was filed in this court and an order of revivor made. The proceedings in the action have been abstracted, briefs have been filed, and the case submitted.

Generally speaking, the appellant argues two points in this court: first, that plaintiff was not a resident of Crawford county at the time the action was brought. This question was presented to the court and evidence taken thereon both on preliminary motions and on the trial of the case on its merits. The trial court found that the plaintiff was an actual resident of Crawford county at the time of filing the petition. There is ample evidence to sustain that finding and it is binding on this court. The second point argued by appellant is with respect to the evidence to sustain the judgment and decree. Appellant does not argue that there is a lack of evidence to support the judgment, but contends that on the question of extreme cruelty the evidence disclosed that the parties...