Barber v. Barber.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 3380.,3380. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | BARBER v. BARBER. |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Connor, Judge.
Petition for alimony by Laurette J. Barber against Harry C. Barber. On transfer of libelee's bill of exceptions after the filing of a master's report and certain rulings thereon by the court.
Case discharged.
Petition for alimony. The parties were divorced in 1931. A separate settlement of property rights and alimony was entered into in writing, but was not made part of nor incorporated in the decree of divorce. Differences arose in the interpretation of the agreement and the matter was brought before the court at different times. Hearings were had by a master, and presumably recommendations made and orders entered thereon. After three hearings, the matter was again referred to the same master with an order to consolidate, in one report, all facts found as the result of all the hearings. After the filing of this consolidated report and certain rulings made thereon by the court, libelee filed a bill of exceptions which was allowed and transferred by Connor, J.
William H. Sleeper, of Exeter, for libelant.
Sewall, Varney & Hartnett, of Portsmouth, for libelee.
The bill of exceptions relates only to the construction of the private agreement between the parties. Whether a plaintiff is entitled to alimony is a question of fact. Cross v. Cross, 63 N.H. 444, 446. While the agreement may be relevant to the issue, it is not controlling, and is only one of many factors of bearing. The construction of the agreement will become immaterial if alimony is denied, although the agreement is construed according to the plaintiff's claim. The right to alimony not having been determined and not being shown to be dependent upon the construction of the agreement, action upon it at this stage of the proceeding is inexpedient. Lemire v. Haley, 91 N.H. 357, 19 A.2d 436, and cases cited.
Case discharged.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...by the court in determining what, if any, order should be made with respect to an extension, renewal or modification. Barber v. Barber, 92 N.H. 523, 30 A.2d 278. Because of the unique circumstances, the Trial Judge placed the burden of proof upon Herbert instead of upon Olive on the questio......
-
Ballou v. Ballou., 3722.
...determines the amount of alimony as well as the method of payment. R.L. c. 339, §§ 17, 18; Cross v. Cross, 63 N.H. 444; Barber v. Barber, 92 N.H. 523, 524, 30 A.2d 278. See, Robertson v. Brewer, 88 N.H. 455, 190 A. 709. The libelant had known assets of eleven thousand dollars and, notwithst......
-
Kibbee v. Kibbee
...determining the amount of alimony it necessarily follows that a large measure of discretion must reside in the Trial Court. Barber v. Barber, 92 N.H. 523, 30 A.2d 278; Ballou v. Ballou, In this state divorce proceedings are not considered punitive. 'Divorce is not punishment of the offender......
- Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.. v. Lantz.