Weld v. Weld

• Decision Date: 16 May 1881
• Citation: 28 Minn. 33,8 N.W. 900
• Parties: WELD v WELD.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

28 Minn. 33

8 N.W. 900

WELDvWELD.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed May 16, 1881.

Appeal from order of district court, county of Rice.

Case & Gipson, for appellant.

A. D. Keyes, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This is an appeal from the order of the district court denying a motion to revise and alter its judgment in the cause. The action was brought for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony and for alimony. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. The cause having been tried and submitted on its merits, the court found, as conclusions of fact, “that defendant's treatment of plaintiff afforded just grounds for complaint, but was not such as to justify a divorce; that defendant had not been guilty of cruel or inhuman treatment of the plaintiff; that defendant had real and personal property of the aggregate value of $40,000, and an annual income of $4,000; that plaintiff had no property or means of support; and that the state of feeling between the parties is such as to render it impossible for them to live together for some time to come;” and, as conclusions of law from these facts, the court found that plaintiff was not entitled to a divorce, but that the nature of the case rendered it suitable and proper that an order or decree be made for the support and maintenance of plaintiff by defendant until the further order of the court, and directing defendant to pay to plaintiff, until the further order of the court, $30 per month for her separate support and maintenance; and that said sum might at any time, on sufficient showing, be increased, diminished, or wholly discontinued.

Final judgment was entered, in accordance with these findings, February, 1878. On December 24, 1880, defendant, upon affidavits, moved the district court to revise and alter that part of its judgment which directed defendant to pay plaintiff $30 per month for her separate maintenance, and to discontinue such allowance. The grounds upon which the motion was made were-First, new facts occurring after the judgment; second, that the court had no authority to render such judgment, and therefore it was void. Upon the hearing the court denied the motion. From this order defendant appeals. We are of opinion that, in any view of the case, the order appealed from must be affirmed. If that part of the judgment sought to be altered or revised is valid and proper, the authority of the court to revise or alter it is to be exercised only upon new facts occurring after the judgment, or, perhaps, also upon facts occurring before the judgment of which the party was excusably ignorant at the time when the judgment was rendered. Gen. St. 1878, c. 62, § 25; Semrow v. Semrow, 23 Minn....