Strode v. Strode

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Strode v. Strode

2 Ky. Op. 332, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 399

DecidedFebruary 8, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 332 (Strode v. Strode) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Strode v. Strode, 2 Ky. Op. 332, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 399 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Peters:

By Sec. 6,Art. 3, Ghap. 4B, 2 B. S. 21 it is provided that pending an application for any ‘divorce, the court may allow the wife maintenance; and as under this provision the court below allowed appellee the sum of $250 for her maintenance till the next term of the court thereafter, when the action appears to have been tried, this court does not feel authorized to disturb the allowance, as it appears to have been but once made.

Notice of the appilcation does not seem to.be required by the statute, there was personal service of the summons, the appellant was in court, the case had been submitted on final hearing, and the submission was set aside on the same day the allowance was made, but upon Avhcse motion does not appear. As, therefore, the allowance was made without objection to the motion for want of notice, and when the appellant was in court, if not in person, by attorney, we cannot say the failure to give notice of the intention to make the motion was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Peters:

By Sec. 6,Art. 3, Ghap. 4B, 2 B. S. 21 it is provided that pending an application for any ‘divorce, the court may allow the wife maintenance; and as under this provision the court below allowed appellee the sum of $250 for her maintenance till the next term of the court thereafter, when the action appears to have been tried, this court does not feel authorized to disturb the allowance, as it appears to have been but once made.

Notice of the appilcation does not seem to.be required by the statute, there was personal service of the summons, the appellant was in court, the case had been submitted on final hearing, and the submission was set aside on the same day the allowance was made, but upon Avhcse motion does not appear. As, therefore, the allowance was made without objection to the motion for want of notice, and when the appellant was in court, if not in person, by attorney, we cannot say the failure to give notice of the intention to make the motion was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 332, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strode-v-strode-kyctapp-1868.