Wald v. Wald
| Decision Date | 11 May 1904 |
| Citation | 99 N.W. 720,124 Iowa 183 |
| Parties | CATHARINE WALD v. GEORGE WALD, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sac District Court.--HON. S. M. ELWOOD, Judge.
SUIT for divorce on the ground of habitual drunkenness. There was a decree denying the divorce, but allowing the plaintiff $ 100 attorney's fees. The defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Chas. D. Goldsmith, for appellant.
A. P. Searles and W. A. Helsell, for appellee.
The point is made that we have no jurisdiction of the case, because the judgment rendered against the defendant does not exceed $ 100, and no certificate was made by the trial court. The prayer of the petition asked for $ 1,500 alimony, and temporary alimony and attorney's fees, without specifying the amount. The amount of the judgment rendered does not determine the jurisdiction of this court on appeal. Fullerton v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. Ry. Co., 101 Iowa 156, 70 N.W. 106. If, under the pleadings, the court could have consistently rendered a judgment for more than $ 100, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal without a certificate of the trial judge. Madison v. Spitsnogle, 58 Iowa 369, 12 N.W. 317; Thompson v. Jackson, 93 Iowa 376, 61 N.W. 1004. The amount of temporary alimony and suit money which shall be allowed in a given case is largely a matter of discretion with the trial court, and, under the allegations and prayer of the petition, the court was not limited to the sum awarded; hence we think no certificate was necessary to give us jurisdiction.
No order for suit money was made until after a trial on the merits, and a judgment that the plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce. The court then had no power to make the allowance under the facts presented in this case. The same principle is involved here that was considered and determined in Sherwin v. Maben, 78 Iowa 467, 43 N.W. 292.
We still adhere to the conclusion there reached, and the judgment is REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith, 32966
...Watkins v. Watkins, 66 Mo.App. 468; Friedman v. Friedman, 132 Okl. 45, 269 P. 257; Hengen v. Hengen, 85 Or. 155, 166 P. 525; Wald v. Wald, 124 Iowa 183, 99 N.W. 720; 27 C.J.S. Divorce § 207e. The reason is that the action is no longer pending and the court has no further jurisdiction of the......
-
Schenberg v. Schenberg
...Watkins v. Watkins, 66 Mo.App. 468; Friedman v. Friedman, 132 Okl. 45, 269 P. 257; Hengen v. Hengen, 85 Or. 155, 166 P. 525; Wald v. Wald, 124 Iowa 183, 99 N.W. 720; 27 C.J.S. Divorce Sec. 207 e. The reason is that the action is no longer pending and the court has no further jurisdiction of......
-
Williams v. Williams
...Watkins v. Watkins, 66 Mo.App. 468; Friedman v. Friedman, 132 Okl. 45, 269 P. 257; Hengen v. Hengen, 85 Or. 155, 166 P. 525; Wald v. Wald, 124 Iowa 183, 99 N.W. 720; 27 C.J.S. Divorce Sec. 207 e.* The reason is that the action is no longer pending and the court has no further jurisdiction o......
-
Thorn v. Kelley
...as part of the costs fees of $250 for her attorneys shall be taxed. Only the taxation of attorney fees is now challenged. In Wald v. Wald, 124 Iowa 183, 99 N.W. 720, the facts were identical with those here except the alleged cause for divorce was habitual drunkenness. Upon appeal of the hu......