Cain v. Cain

156 P. 403, 90 Wash. 402, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 948
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 28, 1916
DocketNo. 13110
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 156 P. 403 (Cain v. Cain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cain v. Cain, 156 P. 403, 90 Wash. 402, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 948 (Wash. 1916).

Opinion

Chadwick, J.

The parties to this proceeding were divorced May 16, 1914. The custody of their infant child was given to the mother. Certain real property and an award of $25 per month was granted as alimony. Appellant brought this action asking for a modification of the decree to the extent that he be not required to make further payments of alimony, and that he be given the custody of the child. He alleges that the original allowance of alimony was excessive; that the wife is now earning $42 per month [403]*403as telephone operator; that of the $25 payment, she only devotes a small share to the care of the child; that the wife has not a good disposition and seems not to care for the child; that the maternal grandparents, in whose care the child now is by the direction of the wife, “will, in all respects, furnish the child a good home,” but that it is not convenient for him to visit the child more often than once a week at its present abode.

Resorting to appellant’s petition, it would seem that respondent has an income, including the alimony, of $67 a month with which to maintain herself and child, and that the child is being well cared for by its maternal grandparents.

For obvious reasons, the appellate court will not modify a decree of this character unless there has clearly been an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. McCord v. McCord, 24 Wash. 529, 64 Pac. 748; Chappell v. Chappell, 45 Wash. 652, 89 Pac. 166; State ex rel. Clark v. Superior Court, ante p. 80, 155 Pac. 398.

Affirmed.

Morris, C. J., Mount, Ellis, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Aaron Matthew Silk and Teresa Ann Broadsword
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013
Dinesen v. Dinesen
186 P.2d 611 (Washington Supreme Court, 1947)
Blethen v. Blethen
32 P.2d 543 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
Cook v. Cook
13 P.2d 38 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 P. 403, 90 Wash. 402, 1916 Wash. LEXIS 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-cain-wash-1916.