Ralston v. Ralston, No. 16869.
| Docket Nº | No. 16869. |
| Citation | 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817 |
| Case Date | May 26, 1942 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
111 Ind.App. 570
41 N.E.2d 817
RALSTON
v.
RALSTON.
No. 16869.
Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.
May 26, 1942.
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.
[41 N.E.2d 817]
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's
[41 N.E.2d 818]
1934. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 269
...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 114. ......
-
DeHart v. Anderson, No. 2-976A326
...in Irwin described the disability statute as "a law affecting substantive rights" rather than a rule of pleading and practice. 41 N.E.2d at 817. However, we will not so expand this holding out of its context as to be precedent for finding the disability statute creates a vested ri......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 19251
...has been held that the word relates only to the amount of alimony when the court deems it proper to allow it. Ralston v. Ralston, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817. It is well known to be the law in Indiana that a court may adjust property rights between the parties in a divorce proceed......
-
Poppe v. Poppe, No. 17170.
...v. Dissette, 1935, 208 Ind. 567, 196 N.E. 684;Cornwell v. Cornwell, 1940, 108 Ind.App. 350, 29 N.E.2d 317;Ralston v. Ralston, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817;Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 1941, 109 Ind. App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114;Miller v. Miller, 1929, 90 Ind.App. 359, 168 N.E. 881;Watson v. ......
-
Miller v. Miller, No. 269
...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 114. ......
-
DeHart v. Anderson, No. 2-976A326
...in Irwin described the disability statute as "a law affecting substantive rights" rather than a rule of pleading and practice. 41 N.E.2d at 817. However, we will not so expand this holding out of its context as to be precedent for finding the disability statute creates a vested ri......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 19251
...has been held that the word relates only to the amount of alimony when the court deems it proper to allow it. Ralston v. Ralston, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817. It is well known to be the law in Indiana that a court may adjust property rights between the parties in a divorce proceed......
-
Poppe v. Poppe, No. 17170.
...v. Dissette, 1935, 208 Ind. 567, 196 N.E. 684;Cornwell v. Cornwell, 1940, 108 Ind.App. 350, 29 N.E.2d 317;Ralston v. Ralston, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 570, 41 N.E.2d 817;Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 1941, 109 Ind. App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114;Miller v. Miller, 1929, 90 Ind.App. 359, 168 N.E. 881;Watson v. ......