Tierney v. Tierney, 12164.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | 12164. |
| Citation | 281 P. 737,86 Colo. 362 |
| Parties | TIERNEY v. TIERNEY. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry Bray Judge.
Divorce action by Sarah A. Tierney against M. E. Tierney. To review an order denying plaintiff's motion to vacate decree entered in her favor, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
H. L Ballard and J. A. C. Reynolds, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Louis A. Hellerstein, of Denver, for defendant in error.
Sarah A. Tierney, plaintiff, wife of M. E Tierney, defendant, brought this action to obtain a decree of divorce from him on the grounds of nonsupport and cruelty. Though personally served with summons, the defendant did not respond thereto or appear in person at the trial. The court however, appointed an attorney to represent him. A jury was waived by counsel of both parties, evidence was produced, and the court found the defendant guilty as charged. Written appropriate findings of fact were made and conclusions of law stated by the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce at the expiration of six months, provided such findings of fact and conclusions of law in the meantime have not been set aside. Before the expiration of the six-months period, and about four months after the date of the interlocutory decree, plaintiff filed a petition in the cause, in which she asked that these to her favorable findings of fact and conclusions of law entered thereon be vacated and set aside, and that the action be dismissed upon the grounds that she had forgiven her husband, that they had since the interlocutory decree was entered lived together as husband and wife, and that she did not wish a decree of divorce upon the findings of fact in her favor.
The defendant by his counsel resisted his wife's petition, and alleged that he did not want a reconciliation, but, on the contrary, desired a decree of divorce from his wife upon the findings of fact which the trial court had previously made in her favor. The court thereupon denied the plaintiff's petition to set aside the findings and dismiss the action, and, upon the defendant's request, and over the plaintiff's protest and objection, thereupon rendered a decree of divorce of the parties. The plaintiff wife is here with this writ of error to have the divorce decree set aside.
After...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faith v. Faith, 17102
...well be entitled to a divorce, but whether or not she [he] will exercise that right is optional with her, [him] * * *.' In Tierney v. Tierney, 86 Colo. 362, 281 P. 737, reversal was ordered because the trial court refused to grant plaintiff's motion for dismissal filed about four months aft......
-
Dudgeon v. Dudgeon
...of society, as well as the laws of this state, require this.” See, also, Walton v. Walton, 86 Colo. 1, 278 P. 780, and Tierney v. Tierney, 86 Colo. 362, 281 P. 737, in which cases it was held that a plaintiff who has obtained an interlocutory decree in a divorce action may not be compelled ......
-
Dudgeon v. Dudgeon
... ... See, also, ... Walton v. Walton, 86 Colo. 1, 278 P. 780, and Tierney v ... Tierney, 86 Colo. 362, 281 P. 737, in which cases it was held ... that a plaintiff who has ... ...
-
Kastner v. Kastner
...action, was void; and any attempted modification thereof was a nullity. Walton v. Walton, 86 Colo. 1, 21, 278 P. 780; Tierney v. Tierney, 86 Colo. 362, 364, 281 P. 737; Cartier v. Cartier, 88 Colo. 76, 78, 291 P. In this connection, it is also well to note that the findings of fact and conc......