Wespe v. Wespe
Citation | 114 Kan. 21,216 P. 814 |
Decision Date | 07 July 1923 |
Docket Number | 24,112 |
Parties | EARLE F. WESPE, Appellee, v. KITTY P. WESPE, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1923.
Appeal from Scott district court; ROSCOE H. WILSON, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
DIVORCE AND ALIMONY--Judgment Sustained. A judgment granting a divorce to plaintiff was sustained by sufficient evidence, and the award of alimony and attorney fees to defendant was within the court's discretion.
H. O. Trinkle, of Garden City, and Leo T. Gibbens, of Scott City, for the appellant.
R. D. Armstrong, of Scott City, for the appellee.
The action was one for divorce, on the ground of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. A divorce was granted to plaintiff, and alimony and attorney fees were awarded to defendant. Both appeal.
Extreme cruelty was not established. In the case of Smith v. Smith, 22 Kan. 699, the court said:
Accepting as true the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, there was not only default on the part of defendant, considering all the circumstances in which the parties were placed, but default attended by indignity and aggravation. Accepting as true the testimony for defendant, she was not only guiltless, but much sinned against. As this court has said many times, it cannot retry the case on the abstract. It does not possess the trial court's facilities for reaching a correct conclusion, and must assume that court strained neither the law nor the facts.
The same considerations apply to the award of alimony. Besides that, the district court has a broad discretion in allowing alimony, and that manifest injustice which is necessary to constitute abuse of discretion does not appear.
The court evidently believed it was necessary to make payment of the award to defendant fully secure. The means adopted--withholding final judgment until the order is obeyed--was probably the only means of protecting defendant, and this court is not prepared to say the order was improper.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Carpenter
... ... The ... rule in Smith v. Smith, supra, has been repeatedly quoted, ... followed and approved, in our decisions (Wespe v ... Wespe, 114 Kan. 21, 216 P. 814; Zeiler v ... Zeiler, 158 Kan. 200, 202, 146 P.2d 649) and is the ... prevailing law of this state. The ... ...
-
Rasmussen v. Rasmussen
...a broad discretion in allowing alimony, and that manifest injustice which is necessary to constitute abuse of discretion does not appear." (p. 22.) miscellaneous motions have been filed in this case, but in view of the main conclusions here reached they need not be considered. The record di......
-
Hipple v. Hipple
... ... 499] 171, 173, 178 P. 415. See, also, ... Francis v. Francis, 108 Kan. 220, 194 P. 641; ... Miller v. Miller, 113 Kan. 22, 213 P. 634; Wespe ... v. Wespe, 114 Kan. 21, 216 P. 814; Tillery v ... Tillery, 115 Kan. 81, 222 P. 100.) ... Much ... less can it be said that the award ... ...
- Soptich v. Sonken Galamba Iron & Metal Company