Maxwell v. Sawyer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Maxwell v. Sawyer

63 N.W. 283, 90 Wis. 352, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 276

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 63 N.W. 283 (Maxwell v. Sawyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maxwell v. Sawyer, 63 N.W. 283, 90 Wis. 352, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 276 (Wis. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

It is very clear that the allowance made to the wife by the decree of divorce was alimony pure and simple. It is so denominated in the judgment. It consists of an allotment of sums payable at regular intervals from year to year, and it is not declared to be a division of the estate; hence it must be construed as alimony. Blake v. Blake, 68 Wis. 303. The general principle is well established, also, that alimony continues only during the joint lives of the parties. It ends when the husband dies. Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206, see p. 216, and cases there cited; 2 Bish. Mar., Div. & Sep. § 836. Nor could it be shown, as was attempted to be shown by the petitioner, that there was a parol agreement between the parties, before the entry of the divorce judgment, that the alimony adjudged should continue during the life of the petitioner. The effect of such testimony, if it could have any effect, would be to contradict the terms and legal effect of the judgment, and this cannot be done. 1 Freem. Judgm. § 275. The manifest result of these principles is that the circuit court was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to both provisions^ [355]*355but only to the' provision made by the will, the provision made by the judgment having ceased on the death of the testator.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

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

Winslow, J.

It is very clear that the allowance made to the wife by the decree of divorce was alimony pure and simple. It is so denominated in the judgment. It consists of an allotment of sums payable at regular intervals from year to year, and it is not declared to be a division of the estate; hence it must be construed as alimony. Blake v. Blake, 68 Wis. 303. The general principle is well established, also, that alimony continues only during the joint lives of the parties. It ends when the husband dies. Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206, see p. 216, and cases there cited; 2 Bish. Mar., Div. & Sep. § 836. Nor could it be shown, as was attempted to be shown by the petitioner, that there was a parol agreement between the parties, before the entry of the divorce judgment, that the alimony adjudged should continue during the life of the petitioner. The effect of such testimony, if it could have any effect, would be to contradict the terms and legal effect of the judgment, and this cannot be done. 1 Freem. Judgm. § 275. The manifest result of these principles is that the circuit court was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to both provisions^ [355]*355but only to the' provision made by the will, the provision made by the judgment having ceased on the death of the testator.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.W. 283, 90 Wis. 352, 1895 Wisc. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-sawyer-wis-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack