Dickinson v. Dickinson
| Decision Date | 03 April 1911 |
| Citation | 114 P. 652,50 Colo. 232 |
| Parties | DICKINSON v. DICKINSON. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; John T. Shumate, Judge.
Action by Sadie A. Dickinson against Charles J. Dickinson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss.
The parties to this appeal were married in July, 1893. In December, 1905, they were divorced by decree of the county court of Garfield county in an action instituted by the husband. In this suit the wife appeared and filed an answer admitting the averments of the complaint. Previous to the trial of the divorce proceedings, the parties entered into a written contract, whereby the husband contracted to pay the wife $1,000, which it was agreed should be in full of any claim or demand for support, dower, alimony, suit money attorney's fees, and all claims of every kind whatsoever save certain exceptions not material to any question involved. Later the divorce case was tried, and a decree rendered dissolving the bonds of matrimony between them. The decree made no mention of alimony whatever. The $1,000 was subsequently paid, as agreed.
On November 21, 1906, the appellee brought suit against appellant. Without entering into details, it is sufficient to say that the purpose of this action, as disclosed by the averments of the complaint, was to obtain an accounting of the property held by the defendant at the time the decree of divorce was obtained, and that she be decreed a one-half interest therein, or, in lieu thereof, have a judgment for the value of such interest in cash. It was charged in the complaint that the defendant had procured the divorce wrongfully and unlawfully, but it is silent as to what acts he committed from which this legal conclusion is deduced. There are, possibly, some averments in the complaint from which, standing alone, it might be inferred that the property in which she claimed an interest was the joint property of the parties; but, taken as a whole, it is very clear that the property which she makes the subject-matter of the action is that which the defendant accumulated during the period the marital relations existed between the parties.
The defendant filed a general demurrer, which was overruled. Thereafter he answered, in which he set up, so far as material to consider, the pleadings in the divorce proceedings, the decree, the contract above referred to, and the payment of the $1,000 therein provided for. To this answer plaintiff filed a replication, in which she averred that the answer in the divorce case was secured by duress that in that case she was misled by the defendant, and by reason of threats, promises, deception, and undue influence was induced to submit to the jurisdiction of the county court, and that the contract of settlement set out in the answer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial