Caulk v. Caulk

Nebraska Supreme Court

Caulk v. Caulk

136 N.W. 845, 91 Neb. 638, 1912 Neb. LEXIS 271

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1912

DocketNo. 16,746

StatusPublished

This text of 136 N.W. 845 (Caulk v. Caulk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caulk v. Caulk, 136 N.W. 845, 91 Neb. 638, 1912 Neb. LEXIS 271 (Neb. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

This is a proceeding by a father under the statute authorizing him to bring a suit to annul the marriage of his son on the ground that he was married-without the consent of his parents before he was 18, and did not cohabit with his wife after he attained that age. Comp. St. 1911, ch. 25, sec. 33; ch. 52, sec. 2. Plaintiff’s pleadings and proof conformed to the requirements of the statute, and the marriage was annulled. Before the action was brought, however, the minor’s wife had given birth to a child, and the trial court, on a cross-bill by defendant, [639]*639ordered plaintiff, the father of the minor whose marriage was canceled, to pay to the clerk of the district court for the permanent support of the child the sum of $800. From this allowance plaintiff has appealed.

The statute does not make the plaintiff, who is the parent of the minor, liable for the support of defendant’s child'. Liability for such an allowance, if considered as alimony, does not extend to the father of the married minor. That part of the decree requiring plaintiff to pay $800 for the purpose stated is erroneous. There does not appear to be any division of authority on the subject. Stivers v. Wise, 46 N. Y. Supp. 9; Thayer v. Thayer, 9 R. I. 377; Osgood v. Osgood, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) *621; Sturgis v. Sturgis, 51 Or. 10, 15 L. R. A. n. s. 1034.

Other assignments of error are disregarded as not available on the record presented. That part of the judgment-relating to the erroneous order mentioned is reversed.

Reversed as to permanent allowance, but otherwise affirmed.

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

Rose, J.

This is a proceeding by a father under the statute authorizing him to bring a suit to annul the marriage of his son on the ground that he was married-without the consent of his parents before he was 18, and did not cohabit with his wife after he attained that age. Comp. St. 1911, ch. 25, sec. 33; ch. 52, sec. 2. Plaintiff’s pleadings and proof conformed to the requirements of the statute, and the marriage was annulled. Before the action was brought, however, the minor’s wife had given birth to a child, and the trial court, on a cross-bill by defendant, [639]*639ordered plaintiff, the father of the minor whose marriage was canceled, to pay to the clerk of the district court for the permanent support of the child the sum of $800. From this allowance plaintiff has appealed.

The statute does not make the plaintiff, who is the parent of the minor, liable for the support of defendant’s child'. Liability for such an allowance, if considered as alimony, does not extend to the father of the married minor. That part of the decree requiring plaintiff to pay $800 for the purpose stated is erroneous. There does not appear to be any division of authority on the subject. Stivers v. Wise, 46 N. Y. Supp. 9; Thayer v. Thayer, 9 R. I. 377; Osgood v. Osgood, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) *621; Sturgis v. Sturgis, 51 Or. 10, 15 L. R. A. n. s. 1034.

Other assignments of error are disregarded as not available on the record presented. That part of the judgment-relating to the erroneous order mentioned is reversed.

Reversed as to permanent allowance, but otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.W. 845, 91 Neb. 638, 1912 Neb. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caulk-v-caulk-neb-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack