Spratt v. Spratt
| Decision Date | 15 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 20885.,20885. |
| Citation | 166 N.W. 769,140 Minn. 510 |
| Parties | SPRATT v. SPRATT. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; John H. Steele, Judge.
Action for divorce by Elizabeth Spratt against Charles N. Spratt. Decree granting a divorce and giving plaintiff the custody of a child and requiring her to leave defendant's home and making her a monthly allowance for the support and maintenance of herself and child and a certain amount for the rental of an apartment, and plaintiff appeals. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.Larrabee & Olson, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
A. B. Jackson and J. W. Gilger, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.
The motion of defendant respondent to dismiss the appeal is denied. By order of the court, made before the trial defendant was required to pay to plaintiff during the pendency of the action $50 per week, was required to permit plaintiff to live in part of the family home and was required to pay all her household expenses and to supply all the needs of their five children. The decree appealed from granted defendant a divorce, gave plaintiff the custody of one child, required plaintiff to ‘forthwith remove herself * * * from the defendant's home, and that she take with her the said child * * * and to live with her said child at a suitable hotel, or place of temporary residence,’ until an arrangement for a permanent residence provided in the decree could be carried out, and it allowed her $350 a month for the support and maintenance of herself and child, and $500 a year, payable in monthly installments, for rental of an apartment.
Plaintiff obeyed the mandate of the decree. She was obliged to do so. She has received from month to month the allowances made. She had no other means of support for herself and child, and in no other way could she have complied with the decree.
Defendant claims that by accepting these benefits under the decree, she has waived her right to appeal from it. There is a rule ‘that the acceptance of benefits granted by a judgment precludes the right of appeal therefrom.’ Mastin v. May, 130 Minn. 281, 153 N. W. 756. But this ‘rule requiring consistency of action before the courts is no arbitrary rule.’ Bigelow, Estoppel (6th Ed.) p. 790. It ‘cannot be pressed too far without injustice.’ Elliott, App. Pro. § 151n. It has no application if a party when he chooses a particular course has no real free choice This is the general rule as to estoppel by election....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass v. Ring
...would have been to leave the money undisturbed while taking an appeal. Withdrawal was certainly not necessary. Cf. Spratt v. Spratt, 140 Minn. 510, 166 N.W. 769, 167 N.W. 735. Thus that acceptance of benefits by appellant should bar this appeal. Appellant's attempted reservation of the righ......
-
Spratt v. Spratt
...it was held that because she had accepted certain provisions granted therein she had estopped herself from appealing. Spratt v. Spratt, 140 Minn. 512, 166 N. W. 769, 167 N. W. 735. It will be noted that upon that appeal the questions as to who of the parties was entitled to a divorce, the a......
- Spratt v. Spratt
-
Webber v. Webber
...to award permanent alimony to the wife, even though her conduct has been such as to justify granting a divorce to the husband. Spratt v. Spratt, supra; v. Fitzpatrick, supra; O'Neil v. O'Neil, supra. Necessarily such a statute must place the matter of making such an award, and fixing the am......