McPheeters v. McPheeters, No. 2758.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Bradley |
| Citation | 227 S.W. 872,207 Mo. App. 634 |
| Parties | McPHEETERS v. McPHEETERS. |
| Docket Number | No. 2758. |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1921 |
v.
McPHEETERS.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Frank Kelley, Judge.
Suit for separate maintenance by Emma McPheeters against L. B. McPheeters. From a judgment allowing temporary maintenance and suit money to plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
W. C. Russell and J. M. Raw, both of Charleston, for appellant.
BRADLEY, J.
Plaintiff, the wife of defendant, commenced proceedings under section 7314, R. S. 1919, to recover for separate support and maintenance. The petition was filed January 10, 1920, in which plaintiff alleged that she and defendant were lawfully married to each other on May 19, 1919, and that plaintiff lived with defendant as his wife from and after said date until August 13, 1919, and that during said time she treated defendant with kindness and affection and discharged all her duties as defendant's wife, but that on said 13th day of August, 1019, defendant abandoned plaintiff without just cause or excuse, and had since lived separate and apart from her, and had failed and refused to contribute anything to her support. Plaintiff further alleged that she had no money or property, and that at the time defendant deserted her he left her without money and without making provision for her support; that defendant owned a large amount of personal property consisting of stock, grain, farming implements and an automobile, and had an annual income of $4,000 from farming operations. She alleged that she had no money to employ attorneys to represent her, and to pay the necessary expenses to prepare her case for trial, or to support her during the pendency of the cause.
Defendant in his answer admitted the marriage and separation as alleged, and denied generally all other allegations. On February 9, 1920, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary maintenance and attorney's fees. In this motion plaintiff alleged the same facts as to the Marriage, separation, abandonment, her lack of funds, and defendant's ability to provide maintenance for her as alleged in her petition, and asked for an allowance sufficient to pay attorney fees, necessary expenses to prepare her case for trial, and for support during the pendency of the cause. The court heard evidence on this motion, and rendered judgment thereon allowing $35 per month for temporary maintenance to be paid on or before the 12th of each month, and also rendered judgment for $185 for suit money
to be paid on or before May 1, 1920. Defendant filed motion for new trial on the motion for temporary maintenance and suit mony. This motion was overruled, and defendant appealed.
[1] Appellant in effect makes two assignments of error: First, that the court erred in admitting certain evidence; and, second, that his demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. Plaintiff, while testifying in support of her motion, was asked if knew approximately the amount of her husband's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Brooks, No. 40431.
...S.W. (2d) 240; Grott v. Grott, 249 S.W. 55; Kistner v. Kistner, 89 S.W. (2d) 106; O'Neil v. O'Neil, 264 S.W. 61; McPheeters v. McPheeters, 227 S.W. 872; Allen v. Allen, 60 S.W. (2d) 808. (6) The part of the property involved in this suit that is owned by appellant and respondent as tenants ......
-
Forbis v. Forbis, No. 7337
...are privileged and inadmissible in evidence [Section 491.020; Allen v. Allen, Mo.App., 60 S.W.2d 709, 711(1); McPheeters v. McPheeters, 207 Mo.App. 634, 227 S.W. 872, 873(1)], considerable testimony otherwise inadmissible was received solely 'on the theory of (it) going to the question of h......
-
State ex rel. Fawkes v. Bland, No. 40654.
...v. Polster, 123 S.W. 81, 145 Mo. App. 606; Kindorf v. Kindorf, 161 S.W. 318, 178 Mo. App. 635; McPheeters v. McPheeters, 227 S.W. 873, 207 Mo. App. 634. (8) Appellant failed to furnish reasonable support, which with (7) supra, authorized respondent to petition for separate maintenance. Broa......
-
Phipps v. Markin, No. 2317.
...were made in 1885 and 1886. These debts were therefore created after the husband had conveyed the property back to his wife which 227 S.W. 872 he had originally acquired from her. There has never been any law in this state which would prevent a husband giving property, whether acquired by h......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, No. 40431.
...S.W. (2d) 240; Grott v. Grott, 249 S.W. 55; Kistner v. Kistner, 89 S.W. (2d) 106; O'Neil v. O'Neil, 264 S.W. 61; McPheeters v. McPheeters, 227 S.W. 872; Allen v. Allen, 60 S.W. (2d) 808. (6) The part of the property involved in this suit that is owned by appellant and respondent as tenants ......
-
Forbis v. Forbis, No. 7337
...are privileged and inadmissible in evidence [Section 491.020; Allen v. Allen, Mo.App., 60 S.W.2d 709, 711(1); McPheeters v. McPheeters, 207 Mo.App. 634, 227 S.W. 872, 873(1)], considerable testimony otherwise inadmissible was received solely 'on the theory of (it) going to the question of h......
-
State ex rel. Fawkes v. Bland, No. 40654.
...v. Polster, 123 S.W. 81, 145 Mo. App. 606; Kindorf v. Kindorf, 161 S.W. 318, 178 Mo. App. 635; McPheeters v. McPheeters, 227 S.W. 873, 207 Mo. App. 634. (8) Appellant failed to furnish reasonable support, which with (7) supra, authorized respondent to petition for separate maintenance. Broa......
-
Phipps v. Markin, No. 2317.
...were made in 1885 and 1886. These debts were therefore created after the husband had conveyed the property back to his wife which 227 S.W. 872 he had originally acquired from her. There has never been any law in this state which would prevent a husband giving property, whether acquired by h......