Pryor v. Pryor
Decision Date | 30 November 1908 |
Citation | 114 S.W. 700 |
Parties | PRYOR v. PRYOR. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Suit by James F. Pryor against Laura E. Pryor for a modification of a decree of divorce awarding alimony to defendant. From a decree denying relief, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Vaughan & Vaughan, for appellant. Ratcliffe, Fletcher & Ratcliffe, for appellee.
In the year 1906 appellant, James F. Pryor, a resident of Pulaski county, Ark., instituted in the chancery court of that county a suit against his wife, appellee, Laura E. Pryor, for divorce on the ground of willful desertion. It appears that they had been living separate and apart from each other for several years; appellee having resided in Indianapolis, Ind., since she deserted her husband. On April 21, 1906, during the pendency of the suit for divorce, they entered into the following agreement, which was reduced to writing and signed by both parties:
On April 23, 1906, a decree was entered by the Pulaski chancery court granting a divorce to appellant from his wife, and awarding the custody of the three children to the wife. The decree recites the execution of the aforesaid agreement, copying it in full, and proceeds as follows: Pursuant to said agreement and the decree of court, appellant on April 24, 1906, executed to appellee a mortgage on the Argenta property to secure payment of the amounts named in the agreement. He paid the dues on the building and loan association stock until it was matured, and the face value, $1,000, was paid over to appellee, and he paid to appellee the sum allowed for support for herself and sons up to August, 1907, and thereafter paid her only the sum of $65 per month. He then filed his petition in the Pulaski chancery court praying for an alteration of the allowance to appellee by reducing it to $50 per month for herself, alleging that his property in Argenta, which was all he owned, was unproductive, and that he was earning $125 per month in his work as railroad conductor, and was financially unable to continue the payment of $105 per month to his wife and children. He further alleged that the two eldest boys, then 17 and 20 years old, respectively, were earning reasonably good salaries sufficient for their living expenses, and that the youngest boy belonged to the United States Navy. Appellee...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flicker v. Chenitz, A--69
...as merged into the decree, but the provision for periodic payments in the decree is held to survive the husband's death. Pryor v. Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S.W. 700 (1908); In re Kuchenbecker's Estate, The third approach, the Massachusetts doctrine, is expounded in Farrington v. Boston Safe D......
-
Duss v. Duss
... ... 675; Brown v ... Brown, 209 Mo.App. 416, 239 S.W. 1093; Jennison v ... Jennison, 136 Ga. 202, 71 S.E. 244, Ann. Cas. 1912C, ... 441; Pryor v. Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S.W. 700, 129 ... Am. St. Rep. 102; Wallace v. Wallace, 74 N.H. 256, ... 67 A. 580, 13 Ann. Cas. 293; Camp v. Camp, 158 ... ...
-
Barnes v. American Fert. Co.
...to alter its terms upon subsequent application of one of the parties. 19 Corpus Juris, p. 251, and notes; Ibid, p. 340; Pryor Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S.W. 700, 129 A.St.Repts. Let us now consider the validity and the effect of the decrees in the case before us. The decree of August 29th, af......
- Pryor v. Pryor