TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Welling v. Welling

Lydia E. Welling v. S. A. Welling

Welling v. Welling, 163 P. 635 (Kan. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 10, 1917
Docket
No. 20,731
Judges
Burch
Citations
163 P. 635100 Kan. 1391917 Kan. LEXIS 281
Disposition
Reversed.
Syllabus
SYI/LABUS BY THE COURT. Judgment — Modification After Lapse of Term. Rule applied that after lapse of the term at which judgment was rendered the district court has no power to change the judgment, except in accordance with the provisions of the civil code.
Summary
Appeal from Rooks district court; Charles I. Sparks, judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Burch

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the court was delivered by.

Burch, J.:

This is an appeal from an order modifying .a judgment. On June 22, 1914, the district court rendered a judgment expressly stating that a sum of money to be paid to the plaintiff, together with an attorney fee to her attorneys, was “as and for alimony,” and that further alimony was denied. An appeal was taken to this court, and the effect of the quoted recital was considered in connection with an application for support and suit money. On January 14, 1915, the appeal was dismissed. At the September, 1915, term of the district court, and on December 15, 1915, the court, presided over by the successor to the judge who was in office when the judgment was rendered, struck from the judgment the quoted recital. This was done, not under any provision of the civil code, but in response to a simple motion to modify the judgment.

It was a judicial question, in June, 1914, whether or not the sum stated to be “as and for alimony” was one which could be so appropriated, precisely as the same subject was a judicial question in December, 1915. If the court erred in its judgment in 1914, the remedy was by appeal prosecuted to effect in this court, and not by an appeal to the same *140 court.. After lapse of the term, and after lapse of a year and a half, the district court lacked authority to rectify the decree.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to reinstate the original judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1917: 31920: 11925: 11928: 11929: 11943: 119172026peak 1917 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore v. McPherson187 P. 884 (Kan. 1920)
  2. Schubach v. Hammer232 P. 1041 (Kan. 1925)
  3. State ex rel. Noble v. Langmade168 P. 847 (Kan. 1917)
  4. Gooden v. Lewis167 P. 1133 (Kan. 1917)
  5. Hoffman v. Hoffman135 P.2d 887 (Kan. 1943)
  6. Mulcahy v. City of Moline171 P. 597 (Kan. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Hoffman v. Hoffman135 P.2d 887 (Kan. 1943)
  2. State v. Harned281 P. 910 (Kan. 1929)
  3. Great American Ins. Co. v. Keswater1928 OK 393, 268 P. 258
  4. Schubach v. Hammer232 P. 1041 (Kan. 1925)
  5. Moore v. McPherson187 P. 884 (Kan. 1920)
  6. State ex rel. Noble v. Langmade168 P. 847 (Kan. 1917)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list