Hudson v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | 32393. |
| Parties | HUDSON v. HUDSON. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Motion to dismiss held not proper method to raise question of res judicata.
Order overruling motion to dismiss action because of former adjudication held not "final order," and hence was not appealable.
1. A motion to dismiss is not the proper method to raise the question of a former adjudication.
2. A decision overruling a motion to dismiss because of a former adjudication is not a final order as defined in the Code, and is not appealable.
Appeal from District Court, Kingman County; George Hay, Judge.
Action by Lavina Hudson against F. B. Hudson. From an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the action, defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Joe T Rogers, of Wichita, and Herbert Walter, of Kingman, for appellant.
Adrian S. Houck and J. Raymond Eggleston, both of Medicine Lodge and Donald Muir, of Anthony, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss the action.
Plaintiff filed an action for a divorce from defendant on the ground of extreme cruelty. The petition alleged that the parties through their joint efforts, had accumulated a considerable amount of real estate, which was described, as well as cattle, farm machinery, and other personal property; that she had joined with defendant in notes secured by mortgages on the real and personal property; that she had been in bad health and confined to her bed, and, not realizing the contents and purport of the same, on October 20, 1934, had executed a property settlement, a copy of which was attached to the petition, but is not abstracted; that she signed said contract because of the action and threats of the defendant, and on said date learned that defendant claimed to have been divorced from her. She further alleged that defendant was and had been for over 45 years a resident of Kingman county and had no other home, abode, or residence, and, if a divorce had been granted, it was without the knowledge, acquiescence, or consent of plaintiff, was wrongfully obtained and null and void. Other allegations as to her separate property, payment of taxes, debts, etc., need not be noted.
The defendant filed a special appearance, and moved the court to dismiss the action on the ground that on March 3, 1934, he had filed an action in the chancery court of Washington county, Ark., alleging a cause of action for a divorce against his wife; that his wife by a written statement duly acknowledged entered her appearance in the Arkansas court on March 2, 1934, the entry being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims' Estate, In re
...Ward & Co. v. Ellis, 152 Kan. 320, 103 P.2d 817; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bender, 153 Kan. 752, 113 P.2d 1062; Hudson v. Hudson, 142 Kan. 358, 46 P.2d 882; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 183 P.2d 220, 1 A.L.R.2d 418; Singleton v. State Highway Comm., 166 Kan. 406, 201 P.2d 650;......
-
Sherk's Estate, In re
...Ward & Co. v. Ellis, 152 Kan. 320, 103 P.2d 817; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bender, 153 Kan. 752, 113 P.2d 1062; Hudson v. Hudson, 142 Kan. 358, 46 P.2d 882; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 183 P.2d 220, 1 A.L.R.2d 418; Singleton v. State Highway Comm., 166 Kan. 406, 201 P.2d 650;......
-
Pulliam v. Pulliam
... ... cause in the court below. Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan ... 80; Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; Simpson v ... Rothschild 43 Kan. 33, 22 P. 1019; Hudson v ... Hudson, 142 Kan. 358, 46 P.2d 882; St. Paul Fire & ... Marine Ins. Co. v. Bender, 153 Kan. 752, 113 P.2d 1062 ... The same holds true of ... ...
-
Billups v. American Sur. Co.
...Ward & Co. v. Ellis, 152 Kan. 320, 103 P.2d 817; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bender, 153 Kan. 752, 113 P.2d 1062; Hudson v. Hudson, 142 Kan. 358, 46 P.2d 882; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 163 Kan. 497, 499, 183 P.2d 220, 1 A.L.R.2d 418; Singleton v. State Highway Comm., 166 Kan. 406, 201 P.2d......