Smith v. Smith
Decision Date | 27 May 1912 |
Citation | 148 S.W. 115,164 Mo.App. 53 |
Parties | SIGEL E. SMITH, Appellant, v. BEATRICE M. SMITH, Respondent |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. O. A. Lucas, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
H. H Blanton for appellant.
Hughes & Whitsett for respondent.
July 26, 1910, plaintiff instituted a suit for divorce in the circuit court of Jackson county alleging facts which, if true, would entitle him to a decree. August 5, 1910, defendant filed an answer putting in issue the allegations of the petition and also a cross-bill alleging facts which, if true, would entitle her to a divorce. March 3, 1911, plaintiff filed his reply and on March 23, 1911, the cause came on for hearing and the following decree was rendered:
Two days after this decree was rendered and at the same term of court defendant filed a motion designated a "motion to set aside decree of divorce" in which she asked that a new trial be granted on the ground of fraud and deceit practiced on her by plaintiff by which she was prevented from appearing at the trial and presenting her side of the case. The facts alleged, if true, show that she was the innocent victim of a palpable fraud. Plaintiff filed a "plea to the jurisdiction of the court" which, treating defendant's motion as a petition for review of a judgment attacked the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the motion on the ground that section 2381, Revised Statutes 1909, prohibits the trial court from setting aside a judgment for divorce on petition for review.
The court heard these motions April 8, 1911, and entered an order and judgment sustaining defendant's motion and granting a new trial. A motion to set aside this order then was filed by plaintiff and was overruled and an appeal, was allowed plaintiff April 8, 1911. All of these proceedings were had at the term at which the judgment for divorce was rendered.
The purpose and function of section 2381, Revised Statutes 1909 are explained in the cases cited in the brief of plaintiff. [Smith v. Smith, 20 Mo. 170; Childs v. Childs, 11 Mo.App. 395; Salisbury v. Salisbury, 92 Mo. 683, 4 S.W. 717; Nave v. Nave, 28 Mo.App. 505; Hansford v. Hansford, 34 Mo.App. 262; Richardson v. Stowe, 102 Mo. 33, 14 S.W. 810; Smith v. Smith, 48 Mo.App. 612; Cole v. Cole, 89 Mo.App. 228; Elliott v. Elliott, 135 Mo.App. 42, 115 S.W. 486; Lieber v. Lieber, 239 Mo. 1, 143 S.W. 458; Dorrance v. Dorrance, pending Supreme Court Mo.] And if defendant's motion should be regarded either in form or substance as a petition for review we...
To continue reading
Request your trial