Kinsella v. Kinsella
| Decision Date | 31 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 22309.,22309. |
| Citation | 60 S.W.2d 747 |
| Parties | KINSELLA v. KINSELLA. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James F. Green, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Divorce action by Loretta Kinsella against Prosper Kinsella. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment amended and, as amended, affirmed.
Gus O. Nations, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Edward M. Ruddy and Henry Elias Haas, Associate Counsel, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
SUTTON, Commissioner.
This is an action for divorce. The cause was tried and taken under advisement on November 3, 1931.
On November 16, 1931, the court gave judgment granting plaintiff a divorce and the custody of the minor child of the parties, and allowing plaintiff for her alimony and for the support and maintenance of the minor child $17.50 per week, until further order of the court. Defendant appeals.
The affidavit for appeal filed by defendant is as follows: "The above-named defendant, Prosper L. Kinsella, upon his oath states that the appeal prayed for herein from the order and decree of the Court directing him to pay to the plaintiff $17.50 per week is not made for vexation or delay, but because affiant believes that the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment or decision of the Court."
The order of the court granting defendant an appeal is as follows: "Now at this day comes the defendant by attorney, and files and presents to the Court his affidavit for appeal and prays an appeal to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and the Court having seen and examined said affidavit, doth order that an appeal be and is hereby allowed the defendant to the St. Louis Court of Appeals from the judgment or decision of the Court heretofore rendered herein, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $17.50 per week."
The abstract of the record filed here by the defendant recites as follows: "Since the only part of the order and decree of the Court appealed from is that part awarding to the plaintiff the sum of $17.50, only that part of the evidence which refers or relates to that question is here copied."
There is therefore no question here with respect to the action of the court in granting plaintiff a divorce and awarding her the custody of the minor child. The sole question relates to the allowance of alimony and maintenance for the plaintiff and the minor child.
Prior to the trial, the parties entered into and filed a stipulation respecting the custody of the minor child and the allowance of alimony and maintenance for the plaintiff and the child. That part of the stipulation respecting the allowance of alimony and maintenance for the plaintiff and the minor child provides that in the event the court shall award plaintiff a decree of divorce, she shall be allowed $10 weekly for her support and maintenance and $5 weekly for the support and maintenance of the minor child.
Plaintiff testified that she was an expert hairdresser and did hairdressing before her marriage; that her shop equipment was rented out for $5 per month; that she lived with her child at the home of her mother, and that she would need $15 per week to support herself and her child; that she was still able to do the hairdressing work; that she could do that work if she could get employment; that she made $20 per week when she did that kind of work six or seven years ago, but that the pay now is only about $12 or $15 per week; that if she got a position she would have to make provision for caring for the child; that her mother was unable to do so; that she had no property or means except her shop equipment, which had been used about five years and was worth from $50 to $75; that during her marriage, before she rented her shop equipment, she and defendant lived in a flat, and she had one room furnished for a beauty shop and served a few old clients; that she did not have a regular shop, but a few old clients, and so followed her profession in a small way earning $3 to $4 per week, but that she could not do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
... ... Dickey v. Dickey, 132 S.W.2d 1026; Hagemann v ... Pinska, 225 Mo.App. 521, 37 S.W.2d 463; Kinsella v ... Kinsella, 60 S.W.2d 747; Stanley v. McKenzie, ... 29 Ariz. 288; Long v. Long, 5 P.2d l. c. 1048; ... Spain v. Spain, 177 Iowa 249, 158 N.W ... ...
-
North v. North
...founded upon the contract and agreement of the parties. Hayes v. Hayes, 75 S.W.2d 614; Brown v. Brown, 209 Mo.App. 416; Kinsella v. Kinsella, 60 S.W.2d 747; Meyers v. Meyers, 91 Mo.App. 151. (4) The and agreement relied upon by appellant fixing the amount of the wife's alimony was not a pos......
-
Donnelly Garment Co. v. Keitel
...McDaniels v. Cutburth, 270 S.W. 353; Smith v. Means, 170 Mo.App. 158, 155 S.W. 454; Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107; Kinsella v. Kinsella, 60 S.W.2d 747; Eberle v. Koplar, 85 S.W.2d 919; Finley Wells, 14 S.W.2d 475; Leesburg State Bank & Trust Co. v. Merchants Bank, 142 S.W.2d 94. (3) Un......
-
Rhinehart v. Rhinehart, 2023
...Hobbs v. Hobbs, 72 Colo. 190, 210 P. 398; Thomas v. Thomas, 222 Miss. 617 (where defendant had failed to comply with it); Kinsella v. Kinsella, (Mo. App.) 60 S.W.2d 747. also Hayhurst v. Hayhurst, 65 N.D. 25, 256 N.W. 413; Stark v. Stark, 28 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 36. The same rule of fairness ha......