Reisacker v. Reisacker

Supreme Court of Kansas

Reisacker v. Reisacker

181 P. 549, 105 Kan. 51, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 7, 1919

DocketNo. 21,984

StatusPublished

This text of 181 P. 549 (Reisacker v. Reisacker) 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

Reisacker v. Reisacker, 181 P. 549, 105 Kan. 51, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 12 (kan 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.;

The defendant appeals from a decree granting the plaintiff a divorce and giving the defendant $500 alimony, claiming that the evidence did not justify the former, and that the latter was too small a sum in view of what she had contributed to the plaintiff’s estate.

Both parties were of mature years, and each had children by a former spouse. After their marriage in 1912, the record shows a most wretched condition of affairs. Whatever might [52]*52be said of the plaintiff’s conduct, there was abundant evidence, to justify the granting of the divorce on account of the defendant’s cruelty and gross neglect of duty. To state or even quote from this evidence would not tend to edification, and is not necessary.

The defendant testified that she had furnished to the plaintiff certain sums of money received for property formerly owned by her, but it is not clear either from the abstract or briefs how much she claims these sums amounted to, though apparently somewhat in excess of $500. The plaintiff testified that she had not increased his estate, but that she had cost him at least $1,400, and that he owed $1,400, together with two years’ back taxes. The value of his land was by other witnesses fixed at $2,500. This would leave him an estate of $1,100, and the award of $500 alimony — the plaintiff being required to pay the costs, said to amount to $171.45, and a fee of $150 to the defendant’s attorney — seems as severe on the plaintiff and as liberal to the defendant as equity and good conscience require.

The decree is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.;

The defendant appeals from a decree granting the plaintiff a divorce and giving the defendant $500 alimony, claiming that the evidence did not justify the former, and that the latter was too small a sum in view of what she had contributed to the plaintiff’s estate.

Both parties were of mature years, and each had children by a former spouse. After their marriage in 1912, the record shows a most wretched condition of affairs. Whatever might [52]*52be said of the plaintiff’s conduct, there was abundant evidence, to justify the granting of the divorce on account of the defendant’s cruelty and gross neglect of duty. To state or even quote from this evidence would not tend to edification, and is not necessary.

The defendant testified that she had furnished to the plaintiff certain sums of money received for property formerly owned by her, but it is not clear either from the abstract or briefs how much she claims these sums amounted to, though apparently somewhat in excess of $500. The plaintiff testified that she had not increased his estate, but that she had cost him at least $1,400, and that he owed $1,400, together with two years’ back taxes. The value of his land was by other witnesses fixed at $2,500. This would leave him an estate of $1,100, and the award of $500 alimony — the plaintiff being required to pay the costs, said to amount to $171.45, and a fee of $150 to the defendant’s attorney — seems as severe on the plaintiff and as liberal to the defendant as equity and good conscience require.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 P. 549, 105 Kan. 51, 1919 Kan. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reisacker-v-reisacker-kan-1919.