Sessions v. Sessions, 27258.
Decision Date | 28 June 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 27258.,No. 27485.,27258.,27485. |
Citation | 226 N.W. 211,178 Minn. 75 |
Parties | SESSIONS v. SESSIONS.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Horace D. Dickinson, Judge.
Divorce action by Elizabeth B. Sessions against John C. Sessions. Judgment of divorce, and, from a subsequent judgment finding defendant guilty of contempt for default in making alimony payments, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Boutelle, Bowen & Flanagan, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Harry S. Swensen, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment against him in contempt proceedings.
Plaintiff and defendant, who had been husband and wife since September, 1910, separated in February, 1926. On June 19, 1926, they entered into a lengthy postnuptial agreement, arrangements being made therein for practically every conceivable contingency. It provided, among other property arrangements, that defendant should pay plaintiff $35 per week until the sale of the homestead, when a lesser payment should be made, subject to the happening of certain contingent events. The homestead has not been sold. Subdivisions (f) and (g) of paragraph 8 of the agreement are as follows:
In a divorce action instituted by plaintiff against defendant, a final judgment and decree was entered granting her a divorce. Defendant has since remarried. The postnuptial agreement was adopted by the court as a part of the judgment, and defendant was therein, as of September 14, 1927, required to pay plaintiff alimony in the sum of $35 per week. See Brenger v. Brenger, 142 Wis. 26, 125 N. W. 109, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 387, 135 Am. St. Rep. 1050, 19 Ann. Cas. 1136.
default in making eight of said $35 payments, a total of $280. Contempt proceedings were instituted against defendant for such failure, and, as a result, the court found him guilty of contempt and he was ordered to appear before the court on a date stated for the imposition of sentence on account of such contempt. An appeal from that order was taken to this court and dismissed as an unappealable order. Judgment was entered on April 11, 1929, as follows: From this judgment the appeal is taken.
Defendant's main contention here is that the trial court had no jurisdiction in this case to punish the defendant for contempt or to require defendant to pay $100 or any other sum as attorney's fees.
The district courts of Minnesota have original and exclusive jurisdiction in divorce proceedings. An action in divorce is in rem, the res being the marriage status or relation existing between the parties. Searles v. Searles, 140 Minn. 385, 168 N. W. 133. The state is an interested party in every action for divorce. True v. True, 6 Minn. 458 (Gil. 315); Olmstead v. Olmstead, 41 Minn. 297, 43 N. W. 67; Bundermann v. Bundermann, 117 Minn. 366, 135 N. W. 998; McElrath v. McElrath, 120 Minn. 380, 139 N. W. 708, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 505.
The granting of alimony is one of the express statutory powers of the district court in divorce proceedings. Gen. St. 1923, §§ 8593, 8601-8604. In the latter section, referring to the order of the court for the payment of alimony, or other allowance ordered or decreed to the wife, it is provided that, "if any person or party shall disobey...
To continue reading
Request your trial