McGechie v. McGechie

Nebraska Supreme Court

McGechie v. McGechie

61 N.W. 692, 43 Neb. 523, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 346

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 17, 1895

DocketNo. 6131

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 61 N.W. 692 (McGechie v. McGechie) 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

McGechie v. McGechie, 61 N.W. 692, 43 Neb. 523, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 346 (Neb. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Noryal, C. J.

This is an action for divorce and alimony. A decree of' divorce was granted the plaintiff. She was awarded the custody of the minor children and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff alimony in the sum of $500 within thirty days from the entry of the decree and, in addition thereto, the further sum of $10 per month continuing alimony, payable monthly, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1893. The defendant appeals from that portion of decree relating to the wife’s allowance.

The evidence shows that the defendant is a farmer, and at the time of the trial owned a two-thirds interest in three lots in the town of Auburn, worth $600 or $700, three horses, two colts, a cow and calf, about 800 bushels of corn, one wagon, and some farming implements. The value of [524]*524his properly, real as well as personal, does not exceed $1,000. Ragan, C., in his opinion in the case of Cochran v. Cochran, 42 Neb., 612, observes: “There is no fixed rule for determining what portion of a husband’s estate should be decreed to his wife for alimony. The amount should be just and equitable, due regard being had for the rights of each party, the ability of the husband, the estate of the wife, and the character and situation of the parties.” (See Smith v. Smith, 19 Neb., 706.) Testing the facts in the ease before us by the foregoing rule we are fully persuaded that the allowance of $10 per month indefinitely for the support of the plaintiff, in addition to the sum of $500 awarded her, is excessive. We do not approve of allowing alimony in the form of an annuity, or requiring the husband to pay a fixed sum each month during the life of the other party, or for an indefinite period of time. (Small v. Small, 28 Neb., 843; Cochran v. Cochran, 42 Neb., 612.) The decree of the court below is modified by striking therefrom the provision for $10 per month as continuing alimony. In all other respects the decree is affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Noryal, C. J.

This is an action for divorce and alimony. A decree of' divorce was granted the plaintiff. She was awarded the custody of the minor children and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff alimony in the sum of $500 within thirty days from the entry of the decree and, in addition thereto, the further sum of $10 per month continuing alimony, payable monthly, commencing on the 1st day of January, 1893. The defendant appeals from that portion of decree relating to the wife’s allowance.

The evidence shows that the defendant is a farmer, and at the time of the trial owned a two-thirds interest in three lots in the town of Auburn, worth $600 or $700, three horses, two colts, a cow and calf, about 800 bushels of corn, one wagon, and some farming implements. The value of [524]*524his properly, real as well as personal, does not exceed $1,000. Ragan, C., in his opinion in the case of Cochran v. Cochran, 42 Neb., 612, observes: “There is no fixed rule for determining what portion of a husband’s estate should be decreed to his wife for alimony. The amount should be just and equitable, due regard being had for the rights of each party, the ability of the husband, the estate of the wife, and the character and situation of the parties.” (See Smith v. Smith, 19 Neb., 706.) Testing the facts in the ease before us by the foregoing rule we are fully persuaded that the allowance of $10 per month indefinitely for the support of the plaintiff, in addition to the sum of $500 awarded her, is excessive. We do not approve of allowing alimony in the form of an annuity, or requiring the husband to pay a fixed sum each month during the life of the other party, or for an indefinite period of time. (Small v. Small, 28 Neb., 843; Cochran v. Cochran, 42 Neb., 612.) The decree of the court below is modified by striking therefrom the provision for $10 per month as continuing alimony. In all other respects the decree is affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.W. 692, 43 Neb. 523, 1895 Neb. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgechie-v-mcgechie-neb-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack