Wilson v. Wilson
| Citation | 70 N.W. 154,67 Minn. 444 |
| Parties | WILSON ET AL. v WILSON. |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1897 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Under Gen. St. 1894, § 4807, the aggregate award and allowance made to the wife from the estate of her husband in actions for divorce cannot in any case exceed in present value the one-third part of the personal estate of the husband and the value of her dower in his real estate; and, in estimating the value of this estate, the husband's income from professional services cannot be considered.
Appeal from district court, Nobles county; P. E. Brown, Judge.
Action by George W. Wilson against Lillie J. Wilson. Edwin C. Wilson was thereafter made a party plaintiff. From a decree for defendant on a cross bill, plaintiffs appeal. Modified.
L. S. Nelson, C. M. Crandall, and Geo. W. Wilson & Son, for appellants.
A. C. Clausen, for respondent.
On the 2d day of January, 1895, George W. Wilson, one of the plaintiffs, brought an action against his wife, the defendant, Lillie J. Wilson, for divorce, upon the ground of willful desertion. The wife answered, denying desertion of her husband, and in her answer also alleged various statutory grounds for divorce as against her husband, and she also asked affirmative relief in this: that she be granted a divorce from her husband, and that she be allowed alimony and a share of her husband's property. The answer also charged the plaintiff with having conveyed a large amount of his property to Edwin C. Wilson, his son by a former marriage, and that he had also furnished the consideration for a large amount of property standing in Edwin C. Wilson's name, but which was colorable and apparent, and not in fact his property, and that the same was held for the use and benefit of her husband, and that such transactions were done for the purposeof defrauding this defendant, both as a creditor and as the wife of George W. Wilson. The plaintiff Edwin C. Wilson, after the service of the answer, was made a party to the action. The cause was tried in three sections, viz.: (1) As to who was entitled to a divorce; (2) as to dealing between the parties; (3) as to the amount of alimony, if any, which should be awarded to the defendant, and what amount, if any, of defendant's money, should be restored to her as due from George W. Wilson, and what sum per month should be allowed defendant for the support of two minor children, issue of said marriage.
It appeared that the parties were residents of Nobles county, in this state; that plaintiff was 50 years old; that defendant was 35 years old; that they were married on the 24th day of April, 1875; that the issue of said marriage was Irma Wilson, born November 8, 1878, and Blanche Wilson, born July 20, 1880. Edwin C. Wilson, a son of George W. Wilson by a previous marriage, was 24 years old at the time of the trial of this action. Upon the trial of the first section of the case, without a jury, the court found that plaintiff was not entitled to a decree of divorce, and plaintiff George W. Wilson then conceded that defendant was entitled to a decree of divorce against him, upon the ground of desertion. A jury was then impaneled to try the second section of the case, and, after trial had, the jury returned a verdict that George W. Wilson has received moneys of the defendant amounting to $2,800, and that he had paid her all except a note of $312.60, and there had been paid upon said note $360, including interest. After trial of the third section of the case, the court, in its findings of fact, adopted the verdict of the jury as its own, and other facts found by the court itself, resulting in ordering a decree of divorce on behalf of defendant, with certain other relief, which will be subsequently referred to in this opinion. The note of $312.60, referred to by the jury, was dated December 10, 1879, made in the state of Kansas, and upon its face does not purport to draw interest; but plaintiff, in his reply, alleges that it was to draw interest from its date, at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum. It did not appear what was the legal rate of interest in the state of Kansas at the time of making said note, and, upon the evidence of payments and the time of making the same, the trial court found that there was still due from the plaintiff George W. Wilson to the defendant, for moneys belonging to her, and intrusted to him by her since their marriage, and before the bringing of this action, the sum of $286.99. The evidence upon this matter is not of such character as to justify us in holding that it was error for the trial court to so find, and we refuse to disturb its finding upon this point.
Other findings of fact by the trial court are as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial