Laweing v. Laweing
| Decision Date | 26 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 4673.,4673. |
| Citation | 21 S.W.2d 2 |
| Parties | LAWEING v. LAWEING. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
Action by C. F. Laweing against Lillie Laweing, in which defendant filed a cross-bill. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Moore & Moore, of Ozark, for appellant.
G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, and Neale & Newman of Springfield, for respondent.
Action for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and cross-bill, in which she asked for a divorce and alimony. The court found for defendant; and entered judgment in her favor granting her a divorce and $50 for attorneys' fee, but said nothing about permanent alimony. The defendant filed a motion for new trial upon the question of alimony. The case was continued on this motion to the next term, when the court sustained it. Plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the court's order sustaining the defendant's motion for new trial. This was overruled, and the court then heard such testimony as the parties offered, and rendered judgment for defendant for permanent alimony in the sum of $500. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to this court.
The position of appellant is: First, that a new trial on the question of alimony alone cannot be granted and allow the judgment on the divorce to stand; second, that the amount of alimony allowed is excessive, and not supported by the evidence. On the first proposition we can see no reason why a new trial on the question of alimony cannot be awarded without disturbing the judgment for divorce. The right to alimony applies to the wife only. The husband has no such right. The wife can only be allowed permanent alimony as an incident to the decree of divorce in her favor. If the husband secures the divorce, then no permanent alimony can be awarded to the wife. McIntire v. McIntire, 80 Mo. 470; Butler v. Butler (Mo. App.) 252 S. W. 734; De Hoog v. De Hoog, 65 Mo. App. 246.
When the wife is granted a divorce from her husband, the order or judgment of the court on the question of allowing alimony to her is not connected with the decree of divorce any farther than that such decree furnishes the basis upon which the jurisdiction of the court to make an allowance of permanent alimony to the wife rests. The judgment of divorce is a permanent one, and cannot be altered by the trial court after the expiration of the term of court at which it was rendered. The judgment on the question of alimony is never final in the sense that it cannot be changed, but may be changed on proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...matter, have been construed as permitting modification thereafter even though no alimony was awarded in the first instance. Laweing v. Laweing, 21 S.W.2d 2; Cross v. Cross, 63 N.H. 444; Sheafe Laighton, 36 N.H. 240; Lynde v. Lynde, 54 N.J.Eq. 73, 35 A. 641; Sidney v. Sidney, 36 L. J. Prob. ......
-
Beckmann v. Beckmann
... ... so that an appeal from either one or the other or both will ... not disturb the divorce. In Laweing v. Laweing (Mo ... App.) 21 S.W.2d 2 it was pointed out that a judgment for ... divorce is a permanent one while a judgment of alimony is ... ...
-
Moser v. Moser
...59 Ill.App. 268; Aiken v. Aiken (Ala.), 127 So. 819; Epps v. Epps (1929), 120 So. 150; Nelson v. Nelson, 282 Mo. 412, 422; Laweing v. Laweing, 21 S.W.2d 2, 3; v. Mayes, 116 S.W.2d 1, 4; Martin v. Martin, 195 Ill.App. 32; Tomlinson, 278 Mo. 282; Aylor v. Aylor, 176 S.W. 1068; Fisher v. (Md.)......
-
Wells v. Wells
...194 Mo. 663, 92 S.W. 75; Vanhoosier v. Dunlap, 117 Mo.App. 529, 93 S.W. 350; Schwer v. Schwer, Mo.App., 50 S.W.2d 686; Laweing v. Laweing, Mo. App., 21 S.W.2d 2. Plaintiff in his original brief raised the point that defendant was not entitled to an allowance of alimony and suit money pendin......