Baker v. Ward, Judge

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Baker v. Ward, Judge

120 S.W.2d 666, 275 Ky. 24, 1938 Ky. LEXIS 356

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

DecidedOctober 14, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 S.W.2d 666 (Baker v. Ward, Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Ward, Judge, 120 S.W.2d 666, 275 Ky. 24, 1938 Ky. LEXIS 356 (Ky. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Chief Justice Stites

Granting writ of mandamus.

This proceeding is an outgrowth of the decision of this court in Baker v. Baker, 271 Ky. 735, 113 S. W. (2d) 16. As a reference to that opinion will show, it was a divorce case in which the chancellor had granted a divorce to the husband and had denied alimony to the wife. The wife appealed to this court and it was determined that she should have been awarded alimony at the rate of twenty dollars ($20) a month. The judgment was reversed with directions to enter a judgment in conformity with this court’s opinion. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was filed in the Perry Circuit Court on March 10, 1938, and thereafter, a judgment purporting to be in conformity with the mandate was tendered but the chancellor declined to enter it on the sole ground that he was of the opinion that alimony should not commence to run from the date of the original judgment. The record in Baker v. Baker, supra, indicates that the judgment from which that appeal was presented was entered on October 19, 1935. The judgment tendered does not disclose the exact date of entry of the original decree but this is a matter which can be easily verified if the date shown by our records is not correct.

Upon a refusal of the chancellor to enter the judgment as tendered, Mrs. Baker filed in this court what she denominates a “motion for rule.’’’ The respondent, Judge Ward, has entered his appearance to the motion but has filed no response other than his notation to the effect that he has refused to enter the judgment for the reasons set out above. Properly, Mrs. Baker should have petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus rather than to follow the summary procedure which she has sought to adopt. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of objections, we shall treat the motion as an application for such a writ.

*26 Wlien Mrs. Baker appealed from tie judgment of October 19, 1935, it was because of an error of tie court in failing to allow ier any alimony. It was tiat error wiici sie sougit to have corrected and wiici was corrected on tie appeal. Obviously, tierefore, a full correction of tiat error requires tiat sie be allowed alimony from tie date wien the erroneous judgment was entered and not simply from tie date wien tie mandate of this court was filed.

It follows, tierefore, tiat sie is entitled to a judgment for alimony commencing with tie date that the erroneous decree was entered and otherwise in conformity with tie mandate of this court heretofore issued.

Tie writ of mandamus is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Chief Justice Stites

Granting writ of mandamus.

This proceeding is an outgrowth of the decision of this court in Baker v. Baker, 271 Ky. 735, 113 S. W. (2d) 16. As a reference to that opinion will show, it was a divorce case in which the chancellor had granted a divorce to the husband and had denied alimony to the wife. The wife appealed to this court and it was determined that she should have been awarded alimony at the rate of twenty dollars ($20) a month. The judgment was reversed with directions to enter a judgment in conformity with this court’s opinion. The mandate of the Court of Appeals was filed in the Perry Circuit Court on March 10, 1938, and thereafter, a judgment purporting to be in conformity with the mandate was tendered but the chancellor declined to enter it on the sole ground that he was of the opinion that alimony should not commence to run from the date of the original judgment. The record in Baker v. Baker, supra, indicates that the judgment from which that appeal was presented was entered on October 19, 1935. The judgment tendered does not disclose the exact date of entry of the original decree but this is a matter which can be easily verified if the date shown by our records is not correct.

Upon a refusal of the chancellor to enter the judgment as tendered, Mrs. Baker filed in this court what she denominates a “motion for rule.’’’ The respondent, Judge Ward, has entered his appearance to the motion but has filed no response other than his notation to the effect that he has refused to enter the judgment for the reasons set out above. Properly, Mrs. Baker should have petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus rather than to follow the summary procedure which she has sought to adopt. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of objections, we shall treat the motion as an application for such a writ.

*26 Wlien Mrs. Baker appealed from tie judgment of October 19, 1935, it was because of an error of tie court in failing to allow ier any alimony. It was tiat error wiici sie sougit to have corrected and wiici was corrected on tie appeal. Obviously, tierefore, a full correction of tiat error requires tiat sie be allowed alimony from tie date wien the erroneous judgment was entered and not simply from tie date wien tie mandate of this court was filed.

It follows, tierefore, tiat sie is entitled to a judgment for alimony commencing with tie date that the erroneous decree was entered and otherwise in conformity with tie mandate of this court heretofore issued.

Tie writ of mandamus is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.W.2d 666, 275 Ky. 24, 1938 Ky. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-ward-judge-kyctapphigh-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack