Jewel v. Jewel, 10051.
| Docket Nº | 10051. |
| Citation | 207 P. 991, 71 Colo. 470 |
| Case Date | April 03, 1922 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
207 P. 991
71 Colo. 470
JEWEL
v.
JEWEL.
No. 10051.
Supreme Court of Colorado
April 3, 1922
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1922.
Department 1.
Error to the District Court of Morgan County; L. C. Stephenson, Judge.
Action by Mahala E. Jewel against James E. Jewel. From judgment sustaining demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Coen, Mallory & Paynter, of Ft. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.
James E. Jewel, of Ft. Morgan, pro se.
TELLER, J.
The plaintiff in error began a suit in the district court, and by her complaint alleged that she and the defendant were married in 1871 and were divorced on August 6, 1914. The divorce was obtained in a suit in the county court, begun by the defendant in error, and in which the plaintiff in error filed a cross-complaint; the divorce was [71 Colo. 471] granted upon the cross-complaint. The decree gave to plaintiff in error possession during life of a large house in Ft. Morgan, Colo., in which the complaint alleges plaintiff had lived during the succeeding years and supported herself and defendant's daughter by renting rooms in said house.
The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff was of the age of 67 years, a chronic sufferer from Bright's disease, and with vitality so impaired that she was unable to do the work necessary for the care of said house; that she has no other source of income; that she has been compelled to pay $1,000 to reduce a mortgage on the property to prevent foreclosure, and that she is unable to support herself on the alimony allowed her by said decree; that the defendant has an income from the practice of law, and is possessed of considerable real estate in Morgan county and elsewhere, and is worth approximately $50,000, over and above all debts and liabilities; that the plaintiff, during the entire married life of 43 years, kept roomers and boarders and earned considerable sums of money, which she contributed to the joint fund; that the defendant, in order to induce her to consent to the decree, concealed from her the fact that he was the owner of a ranch of the value of $30,000. She further alleges that a fair and proper award to her by way of alimony from the estate of the defendant would be $20,000; that by reason of the fact that the decree was entered in the county court, in which the jurisdiction is limited to $2,000, she is unable to have said decree modified by a proceeding in that court. Wherefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 3 Div. 757
...806, 812; Emerson v. Emerson, 120 [111 So. 912] Md. 584, 87 A. 1033, 1036; Stevens v. Stevens, 31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; Skinner v. Skinner, 205 Mich. 243, 171 N.W. 383; Staton v. Staton, 164 Ky. 688, 176 S.W. 21, L.R.A.1915F, 820; Audubon v. Shufel......
-
Weston v. Weston, 11485.
...31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo. 522, 122 P. 766; Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; but in none of these cases was it held that accrued alimony could be canceled, and what was said in the opinions must, of course, be ......
-
Low v. Low, 11334.
...v. Graham, 38 Colo. 453, 88 P. 852, 8 L.R.A. (N. S.) 270, 12 Ann.Cas. 137; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo. 522, 122 P. 766; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143, that a court of equity under our statute, and by virtue of its general equity powers......
-
Walton v. Walton, 12200.
...* * * such court has the authority to modify the decree relative to alimony payable in the future.' We also held, in Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 472, 207 P. 991, that 'a court of equity by virtue of its general powers has authority to modify a decree relative to alimony, when changed circ......
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 3 Div. 757
...806, 812; Emerson v. Emerson, 120 [111 So. 912] Md. 584, 87 A. 1033, 1036; Stevens v. Stevens, 31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; Skinner v. Skinner, 205 Mich. 243, 171 N.W. 383; Staton v. Staton, 164 Ky. 688, 176 S.W. 21, L.R.A.1915F, 820; Audubon v. Shufel......
-
Weston v. Weston, 11485.
...31 Colo. 188, 72 P. 1061; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo. 522, 122 P. 766; Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; but in none of these cases was it held that accrued alimony could be canceled, and what was said in the opinions must, of course, be ......
-
Low v. Low, 11334.
...v. Graham, 38 Colo. 453, 88 P. 852, 8 L.R.A. (N. S.) 270, 12 Ann.Cas. 137; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 52 Colo. 522, 122 P. 766; Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 207 P. 991; Diegel v. Diegel, 73 Colo. 330, 215 P. 143, that a court of equity under our statute, and by virtue of its general equity powers......
-
Walton v. Walton, 12200.
...* * * such court has the authority to modify the decree relative to alimony payable in the future.' We also held, in Jewel v. Jewel, 71 Colo. 470, 472, 207 P. 991, that 'a court of equity by virtue of its general powers has authority to modify a decree relative to alimony, when changed circ......