Bassett v. Waters
| Decision Date | 07 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21,773 |
| Citation | 176 P. 663,103 Kan. 853 |
| Parties | ALBERT J. BASSETT, Appellant, v. JOHN C. WATERS, and HUGH LARIMER, as Sheriff of Shawnee County, Appellees |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1918.
Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 2; GEORGE H WHITCOMB, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
JUDGMENT--Alimony in Gross Sum--Subject to Assignment--Enforcement by Assignee. A divorce was granted to a wife for the aggression and fault of the husband, and as an incident to the judgment an award of alimony for a gross sum payable in three installments was made to the wife. It was further provided that the payment of the alimony adjudged should be in full of all claims for alimony or on any other account, against the husband, and in an action to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment for alimony it is held that the judgment is final and conclusive, subject to assignment, and enforceable in the same manner as an ordinary judgment for debt.
Lee Monroe, James A. McClure, and C. M. Monroe, all of Topeka, for the appellant.
Joseph G. Waters, and Eugene S. Quinton, both of Topeka, for the appellees.
This action was brought to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment for alimony. A demurrer to plaintiff's petition was sustained, and from this ruling he appeals.
From the petition, it appears that Ludie Bassett sued her husband for a divorce, and after a trial on October 13, 1916, a judgment was given in her favor. It recites:
"It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff be and she is hereby divorced of and from the defendant for his fault and wrong as set forth in plaintiff's petition; that the plaintiff, Ludie Bassett, be and she is hereby awarded alimony in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, five hundred dollars to be in cash of which two hundred and fifty dollars has already been received, and five hundred dollars a year for a period of two years hereafter, payable one and two years from date hereof."
The custody of a son was given to the husband, and it was further provided that payment of the alimony adjudged should be in full of all claims for alimony or on any other account against the husband. He paid $ 1,000 of the amount adjudged after which, and on November 1, 1916, she assigned the judgment to the defendant, John C. Waters. On October 2, 1917, a few days before the last installment became due, she died. The defendant, John C. Waters, was proceeding to enforce the judgment by execution, when this proceeding was begun. The contention of the plaintiff is, that the award of alimony was strictly personal for the support of the divorced wife; that it was subject to modification; and that it terminated upon her death. The nature and effect of the judgment must be determined from its terms. The court had power to decree alimony to the wife in the form of support payable periodically, which would be subject to modification on account...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walters v. Walters
...may be made payable in instalments.'' Citing 19 C.J. 261, sec. 608; Winemiller v. Winemiller, 114 Ind. 540, 17 N.E. 123; Bassett v. Waters, 103 Kan. 853, 176 P. 663; Smith v. Rogers, 215 Ala. 581, 112 So. In the case of Kohl v. Kohl, 330 Ill.App. 284, 71 N.E.2d 358, 359, decided by this Dis......
-
Banck v. Banck, Gen. No. 9397.
...in gross is allowed, it may be made payable in instalments.’ (19 C.J. 261, § 608; Winemiller v. Winemiller, 114 Ind. 540, 541 ;Bassett v. Waters, 103 Kan. 853, 855 ;Smith v. Rogers, 215 Ala. 581, 112 So. 190, 192.)” The McKey v. Willett case was followed by the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeal......
-
Smith v. Smith
...final judgments and may be collected in the same manner as other judgments (Haynes v. Haynes, 168 Kan. 219, 212 P.2d 312; Bassett v. Waters, 103 Kan. 853, 176 P. 663; Stoner v. Stoner, 134 Kan. 356, 5 P.2d 847; and Bourman v. Bourman, 155 Kan. 602, 127 P.2d Unless the appellant prevails on ......
-
Haynes v. Haynes, s. 37619
...payments does not destroy their finality nor keep them from being enforced in the same manner as ordinary judgments. See Bassett v. Waters, 103 Kan. 853, 176 P. 663; Stoner v. Stoner, 134 Kan. 356, 5 P.2d 847; Bourman v. Bourman, 155 Kan. 602, 127 P.2d The decision in Sharp v. Sharp, supra,......