Mayfield v. Gray
| Decision Date | 08 July 1933 |
| Docket Number | 31388. |
| Parties | MAYFIELD v. GRAY et al. (WESLEY HOSPITAL et al., Interveners). |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Matters of alimony and division of property are open to consideration in divorce action, and must be presented and adjusted at that time.
Where one spouse is indebted to other at time of divorce trial presumption exists that decree fixing property rights adjusted such indebtedness.
1. In an action for divorce, matters of alimony and division of property are open to consideration, and if there is any question with respect thereto, it must be presented and adjusted at that time.
2. Where one spouse is indebted to the other at the time of trial of a divorce action, and a decree fixing property rights is rendered, it will be presumed that such indebtedness is settled, adjusted, and adjudicated in such decree.
Appeal from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 4; Isaac N. Williams, Judge.
Action by the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge, a corporation against Mary Gray, formerly Mrs. T. I. Mayfield, and another wherein the Wesley Hospital and another were permitted to intervene. T. I. Mayfield was substituted for the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge as plaintiff. From adverse orders and judgments, the substituted plaintiff appeals.
Samuel Griffin, of Medicine Lodge, for appellant.
George W. Cox, Lawrence Weigand, Z. Wetmore, George M. Ashford, and J. Murray Burriss, all of Wichita, for appellees.
On May 9, 1931, the defendant E. H. Morrissey executed and delivered his note due in six months to T. I. Mayfield. In the interval between the giving of the note and November 6, 1931 defendant Mary Gray, then Mrs. T. I. Mayfield, signed the note. On November 6, 1931, a suit for divorce brought by T. I. Mayfield against his wife, Mary A. Mayfield, was tried in the district court of Barber county and as a result he was granted a divorce and was ordered to pay the clerk of that court an additional sum of $500 as permanent alimony and $150 as attorneys' fees within twenty days. On November 9, 1931, the due date of the note, or the day thereafter, T. I. Mayfield sold the note to the First National Bank of Medicine Lodge, and on November 23, 1931, an action was brought in the name of the bank against Mary Gray, formerly Mrs. T. I. Mayfield, and E. H. Morrissey, in the city court of Wichita, and garnishment summons was served upon T. I. Mayfield. As a result of adverse rulings, defendant Mary Gray appealed to the district court of Sedgwick county. Before trial there, Wesley Hospital was permitted to intervene and set up a claim based on an assignment of a part of Mary Gray's judgment. It was also stipulated that the action should be consolidated for trial with another action pending against Mary Gray. On April 30, 1932, the consolidated causes came on for hearing on Mary Gray's motion to quash the garnishment order, and the court, after hearing the evidence, allowed the motion and quashed the garnishment. From that order and from the order allowing Wesley Hospital to intervene, the bank appealed to this court (No. 30965). Thereafter the cause was tried on the merits, the trial being held in June of 1932 and January of 1933. At the hearing in June, 1932, it developed that the bank had charged the note back to T. I. Mayfield, who was substituted as plaintiff. Other evidence was taken and the cause continued to permit procuring of a transcript of the record in the divorce suit. At the hearing in January, 1933, the transcript was read in evidence, other testimony was heard, and the parties given time to file briefs. On March 10, 1933, the cause came on for decision and the court found in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and further found that the matters and issues were or should have been adjudicated in the divorce action. T. I. Mayfield appealed from the decisions, orders, and judgments to this court (No. 31388). The appeals are submitted together.
In the first appeal are two specifications of error: (1) Quashing of garnishment; (2) permitting Wesley Hospital to intervene. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...is granted notwithstanding the circumstances of the parties may have changed (Noonan v. Noonan, 127 Kan. 287, 273 P. 409; Mayfield v. Gray, 138 Kan. 156, 23 P.2d 498; Calkins v. Calkins, 155 Kan. 43, 122 P.2d 750; and Breidenthal v. Breidenthal, 182 Kan. 23, 29, 318 P.2d 981); (3) that afte......
-
Elmer v. Elmer, 6692
...102 Kan. 313, 169 P. 1141; Pinkerton v. Pinkerton, 122 Kan. 131, 251 P. 416; Noonan v. Noonan, 127 Kan. 287, 273 P. 409; Mayfield v. Gray, 138 Kan. 156, 23 P.2d 498. "It expressly has been decided that all matters which properly may be presented and considered in a divorce action must be pr......
-
Brunhoeber v. Brunhoeber
...fail to do so, does not alter the fact that the divorce decree freed the defendant from them, and cites and relies upon Mayfield v. Gray, 138 Kan. 156, 23 P.2d 498; Calkins v. Calkins, 155 Kan. 43, 122 P.2d 750, and Zellner v. Zellner, 155 Kan. 530, 127 P.2d 428, which held in effect that i......
-
Calkins v. Calkins
...102 Kan. 313, 169 P. 1141; Pinkerton v. Pinkerton, 122 Kan. 131, 251 P. 416; Noonan v. Noonan, 127 Kan. 287, 273 P. 409; Mayfield v. Gray, 138 Kan. 156, 23 P.2d 498. expressly has been decided that all matters which properly may be presented and considered in a divorce action must be presen......