State ex rel. Wise v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 20 October 1897
• Parties: STATE EX REL. WISE v JAMISON, JUDGE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

69 Minn. 427

72 N.W. 451

STATE EX REL. WISEvJAMISON, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 20, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action for a divorce against the relator by his wife, judgment was entered in favor of the wife for a divorce absolute, and for the payment of permanent alimony. It appears on the face of the judgment roll that the relator had no property at the time of the entry of the judgment, but was earning $150 to $200 a month. The relator refused to obey the judgment as to alimony, and, in proceedings to punish him for contempt in disobeying the judgment, he attempted to purge himself on the ground that the judgment was void. Held, following Wilson v. Wilson (Minn.) 70 N. W. 154, that the judgment was erroneous; but held, further, that it was not void, and that the relator was rightly found guilty of contempt.

Fred C. Cook, for relator.

Welch, Hayne & Hubachek, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Certiorari, on the relation of James J. Wise, against the respondent, as judge of the district court of the county of Hennepin, to review an order punishing the relator for contempt of court. The record discloses the following facts: A divorce action pending in the district court of Hennepin county, wherein Eliza G. Wise was plaintiff and the relator, James J. Wise, was defendant, was tried on September 24, 1896, both parties appearing. The trial court made its findings of fact, and, among others, that the defendant had no property, but was in good health, and was receiving a salary of $150 to $200 per month, and, as a conclusion of law based thereon, that he pay to the plaintiff, as permanent alimony, $30 per month for the first year, and $25 per month for the second year, and no longer. Judgment was duly entered accordingly on September 25, 1896, and for a divorce absolute in favor of the plaintiff. After the time for appealing from this judgment had expired, and on May 1, 1897, no appeal having been taken, the relator made a motion in the district court to modify this judgment by striking therefrom each and every part thereof relating to the payment of permanent alimony by the relator to the plaintiff, on the ground that so much of the judgment was unauthorized, he having no property at the time of the trial nor since. The motion was denied. Afterwards, on June 29, 1897, upon a hearing duly had upon an order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in disobeying the judgment of the court touching the payment...