Maxwell v. Boyd

Decision Date05 March 1907
Citation123 Mo. App. 334,100 S.W. 540
PartiesMAXWELL v. BOYD
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; R. D. Rodgers, Special Judge.

Action by John R. Maxwell, trustee for Evelene Boyd, against John Boyd. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The action originated in a justice's court in Audrain county. The justice rendered judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appealed to the Audrain circuit court. The regular judge (Hon. James D. Barnett) disqualified himself to preside at the trial, and Hon. R. D. Rodgers was agreed upon by the parties as special judge to sit in the case. Judge Rodgers qualified as special judge in the cause, and it was submitted to him, by agreement of parties, on the following agreed statement of facts:

"John Boyd and Julia Boyd and John Maxwell, as trustee for Julia Boyd, executed the deed of separation, a true copy of which is filed in this cause. The terms of the deed were carried out to the letter until John Boyd brought suit for divorce in this court in the year 1902. when Julia Boyd resisted the suit and claimed, and the court allowed her, $25 suit money, and the divorce was denied by the court. Defendant continued to make the annual payments provided for in the contract up to the time the payment sued for in this cause became due. Julia Boyd after the separation lived for several years, having the child Evelene with her, in Montgomery City, Mo., and was so living there at the time of the trial of the divorce suit above referred to. She afterwards went to the territory of Oklahoma, taking the child with her, and there sued and obtained a divorce from defendant, and before the payment sued for became due had remarried, and is now married and living in the territory of Oklahoma, having the said child with her.

"Deed of Separation.

"This agreement made and entered into this seventeenth day of July, 1900, between John Boyd, Julia Boyd, his wife, and John Maxwell, trustee for the said wife aforenamed, all of Audrain county, Missouri, witnesseth: Whereas, the said John and Julia Boyd for various reasons and causes are unable longer to live together in as agreeable manner as husband and wife should, and to prevent further disputes, difficulties, and dissatisfactions in said marital relations, have separated and have this day mutually agreed and covenanted to live separate and apart and no longer to live together as husband and wife, and as a part of this agreement and settlement it is further agreed by and between the parties that in consideration of the premises as well as in consideration of one dollar the said husband pays to the said trustee for the sole use and benefit of the said wife the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, the receipt of which is herein acknowledged both by the wife and trustee aforesaid. The said sum so paid to said trustee is for the sole use and separate use of said wife, and the said trustee is to pay over, invest, or dispose of said sum in any way and at any time the said wife may direct, free and clear of any claims, orders, or directions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Allen v. Allen, 43874
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1954
    ...of this opinion, that they could make a contract, valid as between themselves, concerning the child's maintenance, Maxwell v. Boyd, 123 Mo.App. 334, 100 S.W. 540; Semon v. Ilgenfritz, Mo.App., 26 S.W.2d 836, and bargain as to her custody 'if the performance of the bargain is for the welfare......
  • Riesenmey v. Riesenmey
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1941
    ... ...          We are ... of the opinion that the court erred in modifying the decree ... [Maxwell v. Boyd, 123 Mo.App. 334, 339, 100 S.W ... 540; Zirkle v. Zirkle, 202 Ind. 129, 172 N.E. 192; ... Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206; Schneider v ... ...
  • Percival v. Luce
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 29, 1940
    ...— a proposition which nobody here disputes — but he cites no case holding that an incidental beneficiary may sue. In Maxwell v. Boyd, 123 Mo.App. 334, 100 S.W. 540; Marks v. Wooster, Mo.App., 199 S.W. 446; Diettrich v. Haberman, 124 Or. 508, 264 P. 845, and Stone v. Bayley, 75 Wash. 184, 13......
  • Campbell v. Campbell
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 26, 1951
    ... ... Shaw v. Shaw, 24 Del.Ch. 110, 9 A.2d 258; Maxwell v ... Boyd, 123 Mo.App. 334, 100 S.W. 540; In re Sears' Estate, 313 Pa. 415, 169 A. 776 ...         This being true, the testimony of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT