Watson v. Watson, (No. 7493)
| Decision Date | 24 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | (No. 7493) |
| Citation | 113 W.Va. 267 |
| Parties | Frances II. Watson v. William E. Watson |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Alimony is an allowance for the maintenance of the wife, resting in discretion, variable and revocable. Campbell v. Camphell 37 Wis. 200, 216.
An essential basis of alimony is ability of the husband to pay.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Action by Frances H. Watson against William E. Watson. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying defendant's application for reduction of monthly sum decreed to plaintiff as alimony and also the return of certain of defendant's gifts to plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Rollo J. Conley, for appellant. Victor H. Shaw, for appellee.
The parties hereto have been divorced a mensa. See Watson v. Watson, 112 W. Va. 77, 163 S. E. 768. In the instant proceeding the husband seeks the reduction of the monthly sum of $100.00 decreed the wife as alimony (in April 1932), and also the return of certain of his gifts to her. The circuit court denied both requests and this appeal followed.
In fixing the amount of the monthly payment, we took into consideration an inventory of the husband's property which he made some two years ago, showing an estimated worth of about $50,000 above his indebtedness. Since then, a material part of his estate has become worthless and the value of the remainder has shrunk until at present it is nominal. He derives no income personally from any of his property, is seemingly unable to obtain any further advances thereon, is out of work and has been unable to secure employment. Counsel for the wife admitted in argument before this Court that he knew of no property of the husband upon which anything could be realized at present. Counsel insisted that the wife should be maintained nevertheless "according to her station in life.'' Admittedly sound, where within reason; but that station is to be measured by the privation of the present and not by the affluence of the past.
Alimony has been denned as '' an allowance for the nourishment of the wife, resting in discretion, variable and revocable." Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206, 216. An essential basis of alimony is ability of the husband to pay. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 68 W. Va. 15, 24, 69 S. E. 381. Kittle v. Kittle, 86 W. Va. 46, 54-5, 102 S. E. 799 Keezer, Marriage and Divorce (2nd Ed.), sec, 696; 2 Bishop on marriage and Divorce, sec. 931; 19 C. J., subject Divorce, sec. 518. The husband here is clearly unable to pay the $100.00 a month and refusal to give him further relief is unjustified. The law recognizes no alchemy for the transmutation of barren investments into gold. Lex non cogit ad impossibUia. (The law does not compel the impossible.) Broom's Legal Maxims (9th Ed.) 171. The award of any alimony against him is predicated largely on the expectation of improvement in his fortunes. Consequently, we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Korczyk v. Solonka
...42 S.E.2d 814 130 W.Va. 211 KORCZYK et al. v. SOLONKA et al. C. C. No. 720.Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.May 20, 1947 [42 S.E.2d ... 407; Games v ... Games, 111 W.Va. 327, 161 S.E. 560; Watson v ... Watson, 113 W.Va. 267, 168 S.E. 373 ... In ... ...
-
Korczyk v. Solonka
...99, 153 S. E. 150; Norman v. Norman, 88 W. Va. 640, 645, 107 S. E. 407; Games v. Games, 111 W. Va. 327, 161 S. E. 560; Watson v. Watson, 113 W. Va. 267, 168 S. E. 373. In the case of Elam v. Elam (Va.), 29 S. E. 2d 222, 224, a distinction is implicitly made between alimony and money to be p......
-
Sandusky v. Sandusky
...pay as disclosed by the evidence before the court. See, e. g., Miller v. Miller, 114 W.Va. 600, 172 S.E. 893 (1934); Watson v. Watson, 113 W.Va. 267, 168 S.E. 373 (1933). Based on these principles we held in the second syllabus of Tressler v. Tressler, supra, that an award of alimony and ch......
-
Jones v. Jones
...Sandusky, 166 W.Va. 683, 271 S.E.2d 434 (1981); Syl. pt. 2, Queen v. Queen, 116 W.Va. 650, 182 S.E. 783 (1936); Syl. pt. 2, Watson v. Watson, 113 W.Va. 267, 168 S.E. 373 (1933). Similarly, in Syllabus Point 3 of Henrie v. Henrie, 71 W.Va. 131, 76 S.E. 837 (1913), this Court held that, "In d......