Vincent v. Vincent, 34380.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 34380.,34380. |
| Citation | 123 S.W.2d 86 |
| Parties | VINCENT v. VINCENT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Ray G. Cowan, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Marguerite M. Vincent against John A. Vincent. From a decree of divorce for plaintiff and also a judgment in her favor for alimony, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
George C. Marquis, Jr., of Independence, and Hume & Raymond, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Fisher, Whitten & Keyes, and John H. Haley, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
This is a proceeding between Marguerite M. Vincent, plaintiff, respondent here, and John A. Vincent, appellant. The trial court entered a decree of divorce for plaintiff and also a judgment in her favor in the sum of $8,000 as alimony, from which judgment defendant appealed.
Appellant concedes that plaintiff introduced substantial evidence upon which to base a divorce decree for plaintiff and also that the judgment for alimony was justified by the evidence. Appellant, however, urges that plaintiff, after her separation from appellant, was guilty of improper conduct with another man and that therefore she may be an injured but not an innocent party. Appellant contends that a divorce decree is not justified unless the party seeking it is an innocent as well as an injured party. Appellant has brought to this court only the evidence touching the question of whether respondent was an innocent party. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because appellant failed and refused to pay her $30 per month pending this appeal and an attorney's fee as ordered by the trial court. This motion was overruled by this court before the case was heard on the merits. Respondent in her brief now insists that this motion ought to be sustained; that appellant still refuses to comply with the order of the trial court above mentioned. Respondent also suggests in her brief that this appeal should be dismissed because appellant has not brought to this court all of the evidence in the case; that she was not able to have an additional abstract printed. Appellant argues that his only complaint against the court nisi is, that it failed to find that respondent was not an innocent party, and therefore the decree of divorce and the judgment for alimony should be set aside. Appellant has briefed the case here on the theory that this case must be heard as a case in equity and that he has the right to be heard upon the one point and to present the evidence only upon that point.
We have carefully read the evidence presented in appellant's abstract of the record. We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemens v. Clemens
...as this court is compelled by the probative force of all the circumstances. Schulte v. Schulte, Mo.Sup., 140 S.W.2d 51, 54; Vincent v. Vincent, Mo.Sup., 123 S.W.2d 86; Bassett v. Bassett, Mo.App., 280 S.W. On the date of the trial, in January 1950, Mr. Edward Clemens, the husband, was sixty......
-
Lasswell v. Lasswell
...140 S.W.2d 51, loc.cit. 54; Bassett v. Bassett, Mo.Sup., 280 S.W. 430; O'Donnell v. O'Donnell, Mo.App., 216 S.W.2d 764; Vincent v. Vincent, Mo.Sup., 123 S.W.2d 86. A brief statement of the facts, as found by the trial judge, should here be set out: Plaintiff alleged in her petition, and she......
-
Sieckmann v. Sieckmann
...as this court is compelled by the probative force of all the circumstances. * * *' Clemens v. Clemens, Mo., 235 S.W.2d 342; Vincent v. Vincent, Mo., 123 S.W.2d 86. While this court recognizes the rule of deference it need not concern us in this case since the only evidence introduced by def......
-
Clemens v. Clemens
...becomes our sole duty to review the evidence and to arrive at our own decision.' Bassett v. Bassett, Mo.Sup., 280 S.W. 430; Vincent v. Vincent, Mo.Sup., 123 S.W.2d 86; Summers v. Summers, Mo.App., 222 S.W.2d This court in discussing the question of alimony stated in Knebel v. Knebel, Mo.App......