Young v. Young

Indiana Court of Appeals

Young v. Young

76 N.E.2d 267, 118 Ind. App. 25, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 224

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1947

DocketNo. 17,693.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 N.E.2d 267 (Young v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Young, 76 N.E.2d 267, 118 Ind. App. 25, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Royse, J.

Appellant and appellee were married on the 1st day of May, 1936. One child was born to this union in February, 1944. They separated shortly after the birth of this child. Prior to the divorce actions hereinafter referred to, appellant, on appellee’s complaint, was ordered by the City Court of Mishawaka, *26 Indiana, to support his wife and child. We gather from the evidence that sometime .prior to January 8, 1946, appellant herein filed his complaint for divorce against the appellee in the St. Joseph Circuit Court. Appellee filed a cross-complaint to that action for separation from bed and board which she asserts was on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Appellant, at the conclusion of the evidence in that case, with the permission of the court, dismissed his complaint. The Circuit Court then denied appellee’s cross-complaint for separate maintenance.

On or about June 17, 1946, appellant brought this action for divorce against appellee charging her with cruel and inhuman treatment. Subsequently, on or about the 20th day of March, 1947, appellee filed an answer of admission and denial under the rules, and her cross-complaint for separation from bed and board on the ground appellant abandoned and deserted appellee and their child, and that he refused to live with appellee. Reply under the rules. At the conclusion of the trial the court made a finding against appellant on his complaint and a finding for appellee on her cross-complaint. Judgment granting appellee a separation from bed and board from appellant for a period of five years. .

The sole question presented by this appeal is the contention of appellant that the judgment of the St. Joseph Circuit Court in the first action bars appellee from the relief obtained by the judgment herein. In this case appellant did not plead or prove the former judgment upon which he now relies. Therefore, he waived that question. Flanagan’s Indiana Pleading and Practice, 681; Brown v. Stapleton (1939), 216 Ind. 387, 391, 24 N. E. 2d 909.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 76 N. E. 2d 267.

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

Royse, J.

Appellant and appellee were married on the 1st day of May, 1936. One child was born to this union in February, 1944. They separated shortly after the birth of this child. Prior to the divorce actions hereinafter referred to, appellant, on appellee’s complaint, was ordered by the City Court of Mishawaka, *26 Indiana, to support his wife and child. We gather from the evidence that sometime .prior to January 8, 1946, appellant herein filed his complaint for divorce against the appellee in the St. Joseph Circuit Court. Appellee filed a cross-complaint to that action for separation from bed and board which she asserts was on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Appellant, at the conclusion of the evidence in that case, with the permission of the court, dismissed his complaint. The Circuit Court then denied appellee’s cross-complaint for separate maintenance.

On or about June 17, 1946, appellant brought this action for divorce against appellee charging her with cruel and inhuman treatment. Subsequently, on or about the 20th day of March, 1947, appellee filed an answer of admission and denial under the rules, and her cross-complaint for separation from bed and board on the ground appellant abandoned and deserted appellee and their child, and that he refused to live with appellee. Reply under the rules. At the conclusion of the trial the court made a finding against appellant on his complaint and a finding for appellee on her cross-complaint. Judgment granting appellee a separation from bed and board from appellant for a period of five years. .

The sole question presented by this appeal is the contention of appellant that the judgment of the St. Joseph Circuit Court in the first action bars appellee from the relief obtained by the judgment herein. In this case appellant did not plead or prove the former judgment upon which he now relies. Therefore, he waived that question. Flanagan’s Indiana Pleading and Practice, 681; Brown v. Stapleton (1939), 216 Ind. 387, 391, 24 N. E. 2d 909.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 76 N. E. 2d 267.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E.2d 267, 118 Ind. App. 25, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-young-indctapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack