Chaffee v. Chaffee

Supreme Court of Kansas

Chaffee v. Chaffee

72 P. 1098, 67 Kan. 836, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 359

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 6, 1903

DocketNo. 13,205

StatusPublished

This text of 72 P. 1098 (Chaffee v. Chaffee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chaffee v. Chaffee, 72 P. 1098, 67 Kan. 836, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 359 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff’s action was one for alimony. The defendant filed his cross-petition praying for a divorce. The court refused to grant alimony pending suit. The case having been called for trial, plaintiff’s motion for a continuance was overruled. Thereupon plaintiff dismissed her action and the case proceeded upon the cross-petition of the defendant, and he was granted the relief prayed for.. In this proceeding in error plaintiff’s complaint is principally upon the rulings of the court refusing to grant temporary alimony and overruling the motion for a continuance. No error is claimed in the granting of the divorce, and as-to that she does not seek a reversal. What she desires to-have reviewed are the orders made relative to alimony and continuance. Suppose they are such orders as, under the-statute, might now be reviewed and reversed, how could such action benefit the plaintiff in error ? She has dismissed her action and nothing is left to try in the court below.

The j udgment will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff’s action was one for alimony. The defendant filed his cross-petition praying for a divorce. The court refused to grant alimony pending suit. The case having been called for trial, plaintiff’s motion for a continuance was overruled. Thereupon plaintiff dismissed her action and the case proceeded upon the cross-petition of the defendant, and he was granted the relief prayed for.. In this proceeding in error plaintiff’s complaint is principally upon the rulings of the court refusing to grant temporary alimony and overruling the motion for a continuance. No error is claimed in the granting of the divorce, and as-to that she does not seek a reversal. What she desires to-have reviewed are the orders made relative to alimony and continuance. Suppose they are such orders as, under the-statute, might now be reviewed and reversed, how could such action benefit the plaintiff in error ? She has dismissed her action and nothing is left to try in the court below.

The j udgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 P. 1098, 67 Kan. 836, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaffee-v-chaffee-kan-1903.