King v. King

• Citation: 214 Ky. 171
• Parties: King v. King.
• Decision Date: 05 March 1926
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)

Page 171

214 Ky. 171

King v. King.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided March 5, 1926.

1. Wife of insane husband may sue for divorce, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment previous to husband's confinement in asylum.

2. Divorce. — No appeal can be prosecuted from order granting divorce.

3. Divorce — Evidence of Husband's Indebtedness to Wife, Given by Wife and Husband's Banker, Held to Support Judgment for Such Amount, Though Wife Incompetent. — Where, in wife's suit for divorce, both she and husband's banker testified as to husband's indebtedness to her, verdict was not unsupported by evidence on ground that wife's evidence was incompetent.

4. Divorce. — Where marriage was dissolved by divorce, wife was entitled to return of money that husband obtained from her through and by virtue of marriage, and not merely proportionate part of land in which it was invested (Ky. Stats., section 2121).

5. Divorce. — Twenty-five dollars per month for 20 months as alimony held not excessive.

6. Divorce. — Excessiveness of fees of attorneys and guardian ad litem, who are not parties to appeal in divorce suit, cannot be considered.

7. Divorce — Where Wrong Disposition of Children is Made in Divorce Suit, Court Can Modify its Decree. — Where it appears, after divorce decree, that children of divorced husband and wife are neglected, or that arrangement for their custody is not securing them care and attention that they would perhaps get under some other arrangement, court can modify its decree accordingly.

Appeal from Barren Circuit Court.

WHITE & SMITH for appellant.

V.H. BAIRD, W.L. PORTER, C.H. HATCHETT, D.T. RALSTON and BAIRD & RICHARDSON for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY DRURY, COMMISSIONER.

Affirming.

Upon the petition of the appellee as plaintiff below, she was divorced from the appellant, whom we will call the defendant. In addition to securing a divorce, she recovered a judgment against him for $4,032.00 with interest from December 11, 1922, same being for money which she had let him have during the marriage, in consideration thereof, and to secure the payment of which she was adjudged a lien upon a certain tract of land belonging to the defendant, upon the purchase price of which defendant had paid this money. The Home Insurance Company, summoned as garnishee, was ordered to pay to the plaintiff $480.24 which it admitted owing the defendant, and which was ordered credited upon this $4,032.00 claim. A fee of $500.00 was allowed to V.H. Baird, C.H. Hatchett and Porter & Ralston, attorneys for the plaintiff, $250.00 was allowed to W.E. Jones, for his services as guardian ad litem, and the defendant was ordered to pay to the plaintiff monthly installments of $25.00 each for twenty months. Plaintiff was awarded the custody of two of the children, Andrew Wilson King and Eugenia Garnett King, and defendant was awarded the custody of the oldest child, Ernest Wilborn King. From that judgment the defendant has appealed, and in his statement, names Katie King only as appellee.

These parties were married on March 15, 1914, lived together as husband and wife until October 25, 1922. On March 18,...