Lockridge v. Lockridge
| Decision Date | 15 April 1842 |
| Citation | 41 Ky. 258 |
| Parties | Lockridge v. Lockridge. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Alimony. Equity and equitable jurisdiction.
ERROR TO THE MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT.
Apperson for plaintiff:
Peters for defendant.
AN annuity of $140 having been decreed to Mrs. Lockridge for alimony, in consequence of a decision by this Court between these parties, reported in 3 Dana, 28, the husband lately enjoined a process of attachment for enforcing one year's allowance, on the ground that he had become so reduced in his resources as to disable him to make so large a contribution, and, therefore, prayed for a reduction. The wife resisted the prayer, but the Circuit Judge, upon the supplemental pleadings and process, modified the former decree and reduced the annuity, prospectively, and also, so far as it remained unpaid, to $33 33 cents. That decretal order is now to be revised.
The power to either enlarge or diminish alimony, as circumstances shall render reasonable, cannot be doubted. And it is probable, in this case, that the husband, who is about 80 years old, unable to labor, and seems to own only two slaves old and rather infirm, a tract of about 750 acres of mountain land, and personal property apparently not exceeding $100 in value--cannot live on the profits of his estate and save as much as $140 a year. He has recently lost, by death, a slave whose hire was estimated at from $100 to $120; and, in other respects, seems to have less productive property than he had when the first decree was rendered; and, therefore, there being no proof of fraud or culpable improvidence in the re??uction of his means, so far as it is shown to have occurred, we are of the opinion that, upon the facts as now appearing, the annuity ought to be reduced.
The Chancellor has power to change a decree for alimony, and reduce it as the circumstances of the parties may, in justice require.
But it does seem to us that the reduction, as made by the Circuit Judge, is too great: 1st. the defendant in error evinces no disposition to take his wife again and treat her properly 2nd. In his first bill, he prayed for a reduction only to $80, and afterwards, without suggesting any reason for the change, he sought the modification as made. This rather implies a consciousness of ability to contribute as much as $80 a year; and moreover, he has not shown what disposition he has made of some money which he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial