Ralston v. Ralston, 16869.

Decision Date26 May 1942
Docket NumberNo. 16869.,16869.
PartiesRALSTON v. RALSTON.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; James L. Bottorff, Judge.

Suit for divorce by Thomas H. Ralston against Dellie Ralston, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint seeking divorce. From a judgment granting defendant a divorce on her cross-complaint but failing to award her any alimony, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

L. A. Douglass, of Jeffersonville, for appellant.

Albert Meranda, of Jeffersonville, for appellee.

STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.

The appellant and appellee were married on May 11th, 1939, and lived together until January 6, 1940, at which time they separated. The appellee, Thomas Ralston, on February 10, 1940, filed his complaint for divorce alleging cruel treatment; and, on February 16, 1940, the appellant filed her cross-complaint, alleging cruel treatment.

On May 22, 1940, the case was called for trial, and the divorce was granted the appellee. This judgment was subsequently set aside at the insistence of the appellant, and trial was had on November 19, 1940, at which time there was a finding for the appellant, and a divorce granted to her on her cross-complaint. No award of alimony was decreed.

A motion for new trial was subsequently filed and overruled; and this appeal has been perfected. It is the appellant's position on appeal that it was the mandatory duty of the court to award alimony to the appellant, upon granting her a decree of divorce. The appellant relies upon Sec. 3-1217, Burns' 1933, Sec. 926, Baldwin's1934. This statute reads, in part, as follows: “The court shall make such decree for alimony, in all cases contemplated by this act, as the circumstances of the case shall render just and proper; * * *.”

[1] This statute was before the Supreme Court of Indiana in the case of Glasscock v. Glasscock, 1883, 94 Ind. 163. The court said: “It is evident that the word 'shall,' as used in the statute, merely relates to the amount of alimony that may be allowed in cases where it is proper to allow alimony. The statute does not mean, as contended by the appellant, that the court shall, in every action for divorce, allow alimony. The adjusting of alimony is not yet controlled by definite rules. The determination of each case must depend upon its own circumstances.”

[2] In view of this interpretation of the statute, the question of the allowance of alimony is, of necessity, to be left largely to the discretion of the trial court. Facts may very definitely disclose a relationship which warrants the trial court in refusing alimony, even though a decree of divorce is granted in favor of the wife. Corey v. Corey, 1883, 81 Ind. 469.

The rule, governing such matters, was recently announced by this court in the case of Cornwell v. Cornwell, 1940, 108 Ind.App. 350, 353, 29 N.E.2d 317, 318, in the following language: “The courts of this state have long recognized that the amount of alimony to be awarded in divorce proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the appellate tribunal will not reverse the decision unless an abuse of such discretion has been shown. There are no well-established rules for measuring the amount of alimony to be awarded, such amounts always depending upon the facts and circumstances in each particular case.”

The evidence in the case at bar discloses that both parties to this proceeding had been previously married....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Miller v. Miller
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 26 Marzo 1970
    ...the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award alimony to a wife who was granted a divorce. Ralston v. Ralston, (1942), 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817; Gibble v. Gibble, (1942), 111 Ind.App. 60, 40 N.E.2d 347; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, (1941), 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 1......
  • United States v. Gerard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 17 Abril 2018
    ...upon severance of a tenancy by the entirety, each party had an undivided one-half interest as tenants in common); Ralston v. Ralston, 41 N.E.2d 817, 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 1942) (finding that Page 13where wife had purchased property and placed in her and her husband's names jointly as tenants b......
  • Bahre v. Bahre, 19504
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 12 Abril 1962
    ...has complained and which she has sustained by the evidence upon trial. Glasscock v. Glasscock (1884), 94 Ind. 163; Ralston v. Ralston (1942), 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817; Smith v. Smith (1960), 131 Ind.App. 38, 169 N.E.2d 130. However, in determining the amount of alimony in a particula......

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