Long v. Stratton
Decision Date | 01 November 1937 |
Docket Number | Civil 3918 |
Citation | 72 P.2d 939,50 Ariz. 427 |
Parties | CURTIS W. LONG, Petitioner, v. LEE N. STRATTON, Judge of the Superior Court of Graham County, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in Certiorari. Proceeding had in lower court affirmed.
Mr Benjamin Blake and Messrs. Woolf & Shute, for Petitioner.
Mr Rouland W. Hill, for Respondent.
Petitioner Long was, on February 23, 1937, cited by respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for failure to pay to his divorced wife, Waldy O. Long, monthly installments as provided in the decree of divorce; and he contending that respondent was without jurisdiction to punish for contempt, sued out a writ of certiorari that this court might review the proceedings.
The grounds upon which petitioner predicates his contentions are: (1) That the divorce complaint does not state a cause of action; and (2) that the parties having made a community property settlement between themselves it was binding upon them as also upon the court, and that the court could not in its decree of divorce provide for alimony to be paid the wife, and its attempt to do so was null and void. In view of these contentions, we set out such portions of the complaint for divorce and of the agreement to settle community property rights and of the decree as are material to the questions raised.
The complaint was filed in the superior court of Graham county on January 20, 1934, and, after alleging residence, the marriage, that there were no children, alleged and prayed as follows:
and for equitable relief.
The judgment, dated February 19, 1934, after reciting the presence of plaintiff and her attorney, states petitioner, as defendant, did not appear, although regularly served with process, and proceeds:
The judgment then proceeds:
It appears that Waldy O. Long has not remarried; that petitioner has not paid her the monthly installments of $40 since July, 1935; and that unless he purges himself by making payments, or shows that he has no assets and is unable to pay, the court will punish him for contempt.
The contention that the decree of divorce is null and void because the facts stated in the complaint as grounds for divorce are insufficient to give the court jurisdiction cannot be entertained in this proceeding. A judgment cannot be impeached collaterally for defects in pleadings which are amendable, even though the pleadings are bad on general demurrer. 34 C.J. 560, § 860. Cited to this text is Tube City Min. Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203, L.R.A. 1916E 303, in which it was held that if the case stated in a complaint belonged to a general class over which the court's authority extended, there is jurisdiction, and the court has power to decide whether the pleading is good or bad. This is the well-settled rule. Collins v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 48 Ariz. 381, 62 P.2d 131; State v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 100 Mont. 131, 46 P.2d 39.
As to whether the court under the law and the facts had jurisdiction to order or direct the petitioner to pay his wife on the 19th day of each month $40 is the next question. The contract settling the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Camboni v. Brnovich
...judge has jurisdiction to rule on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Long v. Stratton, 72 P.2d 939, 941 (Ariz. 1937) (holding that when a complaint is filed that belongs to a general class over which the court's authority extends, the court ha......
-
Stockton v. Stockton, 37203
...268; Gillespie v. Gillespie, 74 Ariz. 1, 242 P.2d 837; Glassford v. Glassford, 76 Ariz. 220, 262 P.2d 382. The case of Long v. Stratton, 50 Ariz. 427, 72 P.2d 939, relied on by the defendant, merely holds that the parties' property rights are determined by the divorce decree rather than the......
-
Rosgen v. Rosgen
...Salvoni, 65 App.D.C. 55, 79 F.2d 411; Mann v. Mann, 135 Okl. 211, 275 P. 348; Troyer v. Troyer, 177 Wash. 88, 30 P.2d 963; Long v. Stratton, 50 Ariz. 427, 72 P.2d 939. Chief Justice. Holden, J., and Featherstone, Taylor, and Sutphen, District Judges, concur. OPINION Givens, Chief Justice. R......
-
Stone v. Stidham
...of the settlement was actually for maintenance and support. See Notes 124 A.L.R. 145 and 154 A.L.R. 443. We have held in Long v. Stratton, 50 Ariz. 427, 72 P.2d 939 that a decree incorporating the property settlement which provides for certain payments as settlement of the parties' communit......