Greinstein v. Greinstein

• Decision Date: 14 August 1920
• Docket Number: 2440.
• Citation: 191 P. 1082,44 Nev. 174
• Parties: GREINSTEIN v. GREINSTEIN.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

191 P. 1082

44 Nev. 174

GREINSTEIN v. GREINSTEIN.

No. 2440.

Supreme Court of Nevada

August 14, 1920

Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; James A. Callahan Judge.

Action for divorce by Pearl Greinstein against Mose Greinstein. Judgment decreeing divorce to plaintiff, and requiring defendant to pay alimony and convey certain property to plaintiff, and defendant appeals from that part of the judgment requiring the conveyance of the property. Affirmed.

Warren & Hawkins, of Winnemucca, for appellant.

Thomas A. Brandon, of Winnemucca, for respondent.

SANDERS J.

This is an appeal upon the judgment roll alone. The judgment roll consists of the pleadings, the findings, and the judgment. No bill of exceptions was taken and filed. One was assigned against the findings, but the court declined to allow the same because it was not tendered within the time required by law. 3 Rev. Laws Nev. p. 3342.

It will not be denied that on appeal upon the judgment roll alone only such errors can be considered as appear upon the face of the judgment roll. 3 Rev. Laws Nev. p. 3344. Upon such an appeal, no assignment of errors is necessary. Miller v Walser, 42 Nev. 497, 181 P. 437.

This was an action of divorce, brought by the wife upon the ground of the extreme cruelty of the husband. As incident to her right to a divorce, she asked that she be awarded $75 per month as permanent alimony; that she be decreed one-half of the community estate, and such portion of the separate estate of the defendant as shall be deemed just and equitable. The issue of fact, extreme cruelty, was tried with a jury. Its verdict was:

"We the jury in the above-entitled action, do hereby find that the plaintiff is entitled to a divorce from the defendant on the ground of extreme cruelty in the defendant."

The court adopted and incorporated the verdict as a part of its findings, and made full and explicit findings, and drew therefrom its conclusions of law, and rendered judgment in favor of the wife.

It appears from the findings that there was no community estate but the defendant was the owner of separate property to the amount or value of between $5,000 and $6,000; that he had a "going business" of a fluctuating value. The lot and home in which the parties resided was the separate property of the defendant, and is referred to as lot No. 4, block 2, Haviland and Hoskins addition to the town of Winnemucca, Nev., of the value of about $2,000, and the furniture therein of the value of about $100. The court found that the wife was without sufficient means, and unable physically to maintain and support herself, and that the husband was financially able to pay to her $65 per month as permanent alimony, and that the wife was entitled to the use and occupation of the home and lot, improvements thereon, and the furniture in the home, during the term of her natural life, or until she should have married again, and that she...