Rhinehalt v. Rhinehalt
| Decision Date | 23 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 10324.,10324. |
| Parties | RHINEHALT v. RHINEHALT. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, St. Joseph County; T. D. Mott, Judge.
Action for divorce by Emma B. Rhinehalt against Landon B. Rhinehalt, wherein, after decree for plaintiff, with award of custody of the child of the parties and support money, defendant petitioned for modification of the order as to the payments for the support of the child, and moved for change of venue, which was denied, and he appeals. Reversed, with directions to set aside judgment, and to sustain defendant's motion for change of venue.
Wm. P. O'Neill and Ronald S. O'Neill, both of South Bend, for appellant.
Chas. L. Metzger and Isaac Kane Parks, both of Mishawaka, for appellee.
On July 10, 1916, the appellee brought an action for divorce against appellant in the St. Joseph circuit court, and such proceedings were thereafter had in said cause that the venue thereof was changed to the St. Joseph superior court, where a trial was had July 17, 1917, resulting in a decree granting a divorce to the appellee, and awarding her the care and custody of Geraldine M. Rhinehalt, minor child of said parties, and in an order against the appellant to pay the sum of $2 per week, for the use of appellee, for the support and keeping of said child. On the 5th day of November, 1917, appellant filed his petition asking for a modification of said order as to the said payments to be made for the support of said child. On March 6, 1918, the appellee appeared to said petition, filed her answer to the same, and also filed her cross-petition, asking that said order, as to the payments to be made by appellant for the support of said child, be modified, by increasing the amount thereof from $2 to $6 per week, and alleging changed condition of the respective parties.
Thereupon appellant filed his verified motion for a change of venue from the judge of said court, which motion was by the court denied, and to which action of the court appellant duly excepted. Thereupon the judge of said court proceeded, over the objection of appellant, to hear and determine the said matters in controversy, and to make further order in said cause, concerning the amount to be paid by appellant for the support of said child, by increasing said amount from $2 to $5 per week. Appellant duly filed his motion for a new trial, alleging as a reason therefor error in overruling his motion for a change of venue, which being overruled, he prosecutes this appeal, and has assigned as error the action of the court in (1) overruling his zmotion for change of venue; (2) overruling his motion for a new trial.
[1] The first assigned error presents no question, as the matter of error in refusing to grant a change of venue must be presented in a motion for a new trial, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial