Kendall v. Kendall

Decision Date14 May 1897
Docket Number317
Citation48 P. 940,5 Kan.App. 688
PartiesGEORGE KENDALL v. LIZZIE A. KENDALL
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

May 14 1897.

Error from Harper District Court. Hon. G. W. McKay, Judge. Opinion filed May 14, 1897. Modified.

Case remanded.

Anderson & Henderson, and John W. Shartell, for plaintiff in error.

Beardsley & Gregory, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SCHOONOVER, J.

On the seventeenth day of June, 1893, Lizzie A. Kendall obtained judgment for divorce against George Kendall in the District Court of Harper County. She was also given certain real estate and two thousand dollars in money as her alimony. The care, custody and education of Rachel Pearl Kendall and George William Kendall, minor children, were confided to her exclusively. No further provision for the minor children was made.

On the second day of June, 1894, Lizzie A. Kendall, the plaintiff below, filed her motion in the District Court of Harper County, to modify and change the decree rendered on the seventeenth day of June, 1893. Notice of the hearing of said motion was duly served. By consent of the parties the hearing of said motion was set for August 20 1894. The defendant appeared and filed his motion to dismiss the motion of plaintiff to modify the decree, and to strike said motion from the files.

The court sustained the motion so far as it related to modifying and altering the decree as to permanent alimony; and overruled it so far as it attacked plaintiff's motion for an order modifying and changing the decree as to the support education and provision for the minor children. The further hearing was continued until the October term, 1894, when the case was heard by the court on the motion of plaintiff to modify and change the decree and order in so far as said decree and order made provision for the care, custody, support and education of the minor children of the plaintiff and defendant. All parties were present and the court made the following order.

"The court after hearing the testimony, finds that said minor children, Rachel Pearl Kendall and George William Kendall have no income or means of support of their own, that the plaintiff herein is without income or means to support them and educate them, and that the present circumstances of the plaintiff herein and the said children are such that the order and decree of the seventeenth day of June should be modified. It is therefore considered and ordered that said defendant, George Kendall, pay to the said plaintiff, Lizzie A. Kendall, in trust and for the support of the said minor children, the sum of fifteen dollars per month for each of the said minors until each of them reaches the age of twenty-one, and that said payments date from the date of the decree and order heretofore made herein on the seventeenth day of June, 1893; that the payments now due and amounting to five hundred dollars at this date, be paid within fifteen days from this date; that the aforesaid sums of fifteen dollars per month hereafter to be paid to plaintiff for each of the said minors, be paid to said plaintiff quarterly, to wit, ninety dollars on the eighth day of February,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Effland v. Effland, 38419
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 10, 1951
    ...Rowell, supra, and points out that in those cases the divorce had been obtained upon publication service, but following Kendall v. Kendall, 5 Kan.App. 688, 48 P. 940, in which, like the case then before the court, the divorce had been granted upon personal service of the defendant, and conc......
  • Phillips v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1947
    ... ... the jurisdiction which it has under the statute ... In an ... unbroken line of cases from Kendall v. Kendall, 5 ... Kan.App. 688, 48 P. 940, down to the recent case of Hayn ... v. Hayn, 162 Kan. 189, 175 P.2d 127, it has been held ... that the ... ...
  • State ex rel. Groves v. First Judicial District Court of Ormsby County
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1942
    ...notice under the circumstances existing in the particular case. Cornelison v. Cornelison, supra; Wells v. Wells, supra; Kendall v. Kendall, 5 Kan. App. 688, 48 P. 940. As district court acquired jurisdiction to entertain the motion to modify, it also had jurisdiction to allow counsel fees f......
  • Davis v. Davis
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1937
    ... ... We do not believe ... the statute was intended to be thus interpreted. In the early ... case of Kendall v. Kendall, 5 Kan.App. 688, 48 P ... 940, the latter condition existed and the court reversed the ... trial court and held the payments should ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT