Angel v. Angel

• Decision Date: 17 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 3955.,3955.
• Citation: 285 S.W. 1035
• Parties: ANGEL v. ANGEL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

285 S.W. 1035

ANGEL v. ANGEL.

No. 3955.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 17, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; H. C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Lillian Angel against John Ira Angel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

R. F. Baynes and E. F. Sharp, both of New Madrid, for appellant.

Ward, Reeves & Oliver, of Caruthersville, for respondent.

COX, P. J.

This is an action at law by the mother of a minor child to recover from the father of the child from whom she has been divorced the sum of $500 for past support of the child, and for an allowance of a stipulated sum for the future support of the child. The court rendered judgment for $250 for past support of the child, and made an allowance of $15 per month for future support, to be paid each month until otherwise ordered by the court. Defendant appealed.

Plaintiff and defendant had been husband and wife, and of this marriage two children were born, one of which is Virginia Lee Angel, and plaintiff has had the custody of this child since the child was eight or nine years old. The petition merely alleges the fact of marriage and divorce, and that the court in the divorce proceeding awarded the custody of the children to the plaintiff. It does hot allege in what court the divorce was secured, nor that said court made any order in relation to the support of the children. It then alleges that it was the duty of the father to maintain and support said minor child, Virginia Lee Angel, and that he had refused to do so, and then alleged that she had been required to expend $500 for that purpose, and asked judgment for that sum. The petition also alleges that $25 per month is a reasonable and necessary sum for the support and maintenance of said child, and asks for judgment for that sum to be paid monthly for the future support of the child. The defendant moved to strike out that part of the petition relating to future support. This was overruled. The answer admitted the marriage, the birth of the child, and the divorce, but denied the other allegations. At the close of the evidence the defendant asked a declaration of law to the effect that plaintiff could not recover in this case for future support of the child. This was refused, and exception saved.

The only question involved in this appeal is the right of plaintiff to recover in this form of action for the future support of the child. This is not a proceeding under the statute to secure...