Dawson v. Dawson

• Decision Date: 18 November 1940
• Docket Number: No. 19813.,19813.
• Citation: 144 S.W.2d 877
• Parties: DAWSON v. DAWSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

144 S.W.2d 877

DAWSON v. DAWSON.

No. 19813.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 18, 1940.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Suit for divorce by John W. Dawson against Edna Lee Dawson. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals and defendant filed a motion for alimony and suit money. From a judgment allowing defendant alimony and suit money, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Ellis G. Cook, of Maryville, for appellant.

J. B. McGilvray and J. K. Owens, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Commissioner.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for divorce in the circuit court of Johnson County. Trial of the cause in the circuit court of Pettis County, to which the venue was changed, resulted in the dismissal of plaintiff's petition. He appealed.

Thereafter, the defendant filed motion for alimony and suit money. The motion was heard and sustained and the court rendered judgment in favor of defendant for $25 per month for support, $150 attorney's fees and $25 expense of defending the divorce action in the appellate court. The present appeal is by the plaintiff from that judgment.

The single question presented on this appeal is whether or not an antenuptial contract, entered into by plaintiff and defendant, precluded the latter from claiming alimony and suit money pending the appeal in the divorce suit.

In the view we take of the case it is not necessary to state the provisions of the antenuptial contract for the reason we cannot, in this proceeding, determine whether the contract is a valid one, as the plaintiff claims, or whether it is void as against public policy, as the defendant contends.

In the case of Young v. Sangster et al., 322 Mo. 802, 16 S.W.2d 92, 96, the plaintiff after the death of his wife, with whom he had an antenuptial contract, sued her heirs for the partitions of real estate. The plaintiff contended his wife repudiated their antenuptial contract by bringing a suit for divorce and alimony. In ruling that question, the court said: "The divorce suit arose out of an alleged breach by plaintiff of his marriage vows, and did not involve the separate property rights of plaintiff and his wife as settled and agreed upon by their antenuptial contract. The right of plaintiff's wife to alimony was incidental to her right to a legal separation, and involved only plaintiff's legal duty to support her. The antenuptial contract could have formed...