Griffith v. Griffith

• Citation: 190 S.W. 1021
• Decision Date: 18 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12204.,12204.
• Parties: GRIFFITH v. GRIFFITH.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

190 S.W. 1021

GRIFFITH v. GRIFFITH.

No. 12204.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 18, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit for divorce by Hanna Griffith against Lawrence M. Griffith. From a judgment awarding plaintiff $20 per month alimony without allowance for maintenance of a minor child, plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Smith & Chastain, of Butler, for plaintiff in error. Silvers & Dawson, of Butler, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, J.

The parties were married in 1901, and lived together as husband and wife until July 7, 1914, when they separated, and plaintiff, with their infant daughter, returned to her father's home, where they have since resided.

On August 31, 1914, plaintiff brought her suit in the circuit court of Bates county for a divorce and for the custody of the child. She also prayed for temporary and permanent alimony for the support of herself and child. The court awarded a divorce and the custody of the child to plaintiff and allowed her suit money in the sum of $100, but refused to make any allowance for permanent alimony. On proceedings in error, prosecuted by plaintiff from the judgment touching alimony, we said:

"We cannot give our sanction to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to no alimony for the support of herself and minor child. * * * Where the wife secures a decree of divorce, she is entitled to a judgment for alimony regardless of the * * * willingness of her kin and friends to come to her aid. This liability of the husband arises out of his legal obligation to support her and could not be destroyed or lessened by his own culpable conduct which gave her ground for divorce. It was the duty of the court to make her a reasonable allowance out of defendant's estate, small as it is, and not to leave her dependent upon the generosity of her father."

And we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed. Griffith v. Griffith, 180 S. W. 411.

Pursuant to this decision, the learned trial judge heard evidence relating to the issue of alimony, and on April 5, 1916, rendered judgment:

"That plaintiff have and recover of and from defendant the sum of $20 each month hereafter until the further order of the court."

No allowance was made for the support and maintenance of the child. Deeming this judgment inadequate, plaintiff again brought the case to this court by writ of error.

The parties live at Rich Hill, where defendant owns a two-story brick business building and a half interest in a grocery store which appears to be doing a safe and profitable business. The building is worth $3,800, and the net value of defendant's half interest in the grocery business may be safely estimated at $1,700. The building has been continuously occupied by a tenant for the past ten years at a rental of $50 per month which is its reasonable rental value. The profits of the grocery business, of course, vary to some extent; but we gather from all the evidence that the average annual profit will not fall...