King v. King
| Decision Date | 16 October 1907 |
| Docket Number | 14,770 |
| Citation | 113 N.W. 538,79 Neb. 852 |
| Parties | WILLIAM KING, APPELLEE, v. WINIFRED KING, APPELLANT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Box Buttte county: WILLIAM H WESTOVER, JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Hamer & Hamer and R. C. Noleman, for appellant.
William Mitchell and T. J. Doyle, contra.
AMES C. JACKSON and CALKINS, CC., concur.
The defendant obtained upon a cross-petition in the district court a decree of divorce from her husband on the ground of adultery. The plaintiff acquiesced in the decree, which is sufficiently supported by pleading and proof; but the plaintiff appealed to this court from a collateral judgment awarding alimony.
There were at the time of the trial four children of the marriage; one boy aged 13 years, and another aged 12 years, and one girl aged 11 years, and another aged 9 years. The wife was awarded the care and custody of the children during their minority, and provided for their maintenance with an annuity from her husband of $ 300 for nine years, or until the youngest, if she shall live so long, will attain her legal majority. The defendant was the owner in her own right, at the time of her marriage and also at the time of the trial, of property of the value of $ 2,000, and she also had, at the time of the trial, the title of other property acquired, as the court found, by the joint effort of the parties, of the value of $ 13,250. The decree awards the wife $ 970 as permanent alimony, and $ 400 as "suit money." The amount of the permanent alimony, subtracted from the value of the possessions of the husband and added to that of the possessions of the wife, produces two equal sums, viz., $ 16,220.
The foregoing facts and valuations are such as were found and established by the district court. There is conflicting testimony, as there usually is upon such inquiries, with respect to the value of the various items of real property but the deductions therefrom made by the trial judge appear to us to be reasonable, and are not assailed for bias or prejudice or obvious mistake. Under a recent statute, they are not conclusive upon this court; but the judge saw and heard the witnesses, and has been for many years a resident of the district and familiar with the localities in which the properties lie. His opinion, therefore, upon such questions may be given some consideration, quite aside from the legal presumption, now...
To continue reading
Request your trial