Beers v. Beers
| Decision Date | 26 July 1913 |
| Citation | 74 Wash. 458,133 P. 605 |
| Parties | BEERS v. BEERS. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.
Action for divorce by Irene Beers against Fred E. Beers. From a judgment modifying the decree of divorce, plaintiff appeals. Remanded, with directions.
Geo. W Saulsberry, of Seattle, for appellant.
Gay & Olson and Milo A. Root, all of Seattle, for respondent.
The purpose of this proceeding is to modify a decree of divorce. On April 10, 1909, the superior court for King county entered a decree granting to the plaintiff an absolute divorce from the defendant, and awarding to the plaintiff the care and custody of their two minor children, Gladys Irene and Evelyn. The decree also provided that the defendant pay to the plaintiff for the use and benefit of the children, the sum of $15 each and every month until the further order of the court, $100 as an attorney's fee for plaintiff's attorney, to be paid in installments of $20 per month, and costs of the action. The right to modify or change the decree with reference to the allowance or custody of the children was reserved by the court in the decree. Thereafter, during the month of October, 1912, the defendant filed a petition seeking to have the decree modified with respect to the payment of alimony and the custody of the children. From this petition it appears that the decree, so far as the payment of alimony, attorney's fee, and costs are concerned, has never been complied with by the defendant. The portions of the petition material to this inquiry are in substance as follows: That the plaintiff has practically abandoned her two minor children; that Gladys Irene is being carried about the country by plaintiff's sister and her husband, traveling vaudeville actors of Chicago, Ill.; that Evelyn is kept in the home of plaintiff's father, at Bryn Mawr, in King county, who is living with a woman not his wife; that the child is falsely taught as to her correct name; that at the trial of the divorce proceeding, plaintiff upon oath falsely represented that she had rich friends and relatives who would assist her in the education, maintenance, and support of the minor children; that the plaintiff is not now a fit and suitable person longer to have their care, custody, and control; that defendant now has employment in King county, lives with his father and mother at Bryn Mawr, and that his mother is in the best of health; that their home is comfortable, and the minor children can be given the education and every comfort and advantage that children of their age and circumstances should have. To this petition a general demurrer was interposed which, on December 24, 1912, was by the court overruled. The plaintiff elected to stand on the demurrer and refused to plead further. Thereupon judgment was entered modifying the decree and adjudging that the defendant be relieved and discharged from the payment of alimony, including that already accrued and unpaid, and that which would accrue in the future. It was further decreed that the custody of the children be taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed.
Upon this appeal the questions presented are the right or power of the court to modify the decree: (1) As to the custody of the children; (2) as to alimony yet to accrue; and (3) as to alimony past due.
I. The law in this state is well settled that where there is a material change in the conditions or fitness of the parties or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kephart v. Kephart
...P. 925; Parenti v. Parenti, 1945, 71 R.I. 18, 41 A.2d 313; Myers v. Myers, 1923, 62 Utah 90, 218 P. 123, 30 A.L.R. 74; Beers v. Beers, 1913, 74 Wash. 458, 133 P. 605; Robinson v. Robinson, 1948, 131 W.Va. 160, 50 S.E.2d 455. Many of these decisions rely on Sistare v. Sistare; few give any r......
-
Marriage of Shoemaker, In re
...(1953); McGrath v. Davis, 39 Wash.2d 487, 489, 236 P.2d 765 (1951); Kinne v. Kinne, 137 Wash. 284, 242 P. 388 (1926); Beers v. Beers, 74 Wash. 458, 133 P. 605 (1913). When the trial court vacated the child support order in this case, it reinstated the applicable terms of the original divorc......
-
Koon v. Koon
...Wash.2d 487, 236 P.2d 765; Pishue v. Pishue, 32 Wash.2d 750, 753, 203 P.2d 1070; Kinne v. Kinne, 137 Wash. 284, 242 P. 388; Beers v. Beers, 74 Wash. 458, 133 P. 605. While it is to the father's everlasting credit that he cared for the boys in his own home, nevertheless, in view of the manda......
-
St. Germain v. St. Germain
... ... [157 P.2d 988.] ... nothing more than judgments for the payment of money. Then, ... citing Harris v. Harris, supra, Beers v. Beers, 74 ... Wash. 458, 133 P. 605; Kinne v. Kinne, 137 Wash ... 284, 242 P. 388, and State ex rel. Taylor v. Superior ... ...