TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wetter v. Wetter

HULDA E. WETTER v. WILLIAM F. WETTER

Wetter v. Wetter, 177 N.W. 491 (Minn. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 7, 1920
Docket
No. 21,698
Citations
177 N.W. 491145 Minn. 4991920 Minn. LEXIS 537
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Divorce —■ temporary alimony and attorney’s fee. Section 7119, G. S. 1913, does not authorize an award of temporary alimony, suit money and attorney’s fees, unless necessary for the wife’s support and for securing a proper presentation of her cause of action or defense to the court. The fact that the wife has some property does not foreclose the court from awarding her temporary support money. Stiehm v. Stiehm, 69 Minn. 461, 72 N. W. 708. [Reporter.] Same —amounts awarded were proper. Where plaintiff owned $1,800 in certificates of deposit and a mortgage of $406, and defendant admitted he was worth $56,600, the court did not err in directing defendant to pay $175 for attorney’s fees and $65 per month for plaintiff’s support. [Reporter.]
Summary
Action for divorce in the district court for Carver county. Plaintiff moved for an order directing defendant to pay her or her attorneys $'56 for fees of officers and witnesses, $500 for fees of her attorneys and $106 per month for support of plaintiff and her youngest child. Prom an order, Tifft, X, directing the payment of $65 per month as temporary alimony, $35 for fees of officers and witnesses, and $175 for attorney’s fees, defendant appealed on the ground that the court abused his discretion in making the same.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

The court ordered defendant to pay plaintiff certain sums for attorney’s fees, suit money and support pendente lite of her divorce. Defendant appeals from the order.

The reasonableness of each item awarded is conceded, but the contention is that the court was without authority to order defendant to pay anything whatever, because the showing disclosed that plaintiff owns certificates of deposit in banks to the amount of $1,806, and also a note for $400, secured by mortgage. Defendant is worth not less that $56,000 by 'his own admission.

Temporary alimony, suit money and attorney’s fees are to be awarded cautiously. The statute, section 7119, G. -S. 1913, does not authorize the same, unless necessary for the wife’s support and for securing a proper presentation of her cause of action or defense to the court. Whether she has means of her own must be considered in determining the necessity of aid from the husband. But it was held in Stiehm v. Stiehm, 69 Minn. 461 , 72 N. W. 708 , that the fact that the wife in the divorce suit has some property does not preclude the court from awarding her temporary support money. Where the wife’s income from what property she- may own is not sufficient for her support and expenses while the divorce action is pending, or where it is not readily available for her immediate need, it is generally held proper for the *501 court to compel the husband to contribute. Cooper v. Cooper, 185 Ill. 163 , 56 N. E. 1059 ; Sellers v. Sellers, 141 Ind. 305 , 40 N. E. 699 ; Campbell v. Campbell, 73 Iowa, 482 , 35 N. W. 522 ; Rose v. Rose, 53 Mich. 585 , 19 N. W. 195 ; Graves v. Graves, 143 App. Dlv. 923, 128 N. Y. Supp. 499 ; Merrit v. Merrit, 99 N. Y. 643 , 1 N. E. 605 ; Bailey v. Bailey, 127 N. C. 474 , 37 S. E. 502 ; Seads v. Seads, 27 Pa. Co. Ct. 26 ; 19 C. J. § 517, Title Divorce.

We think the showing sufficient to warrant the court in the exercise of judicial discretion to order defendant to pay the several sums referred to.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1921: 11951: 11972: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Spratt v. Spratt185 N.W. 509 (Minn. 1921)
  2. Carlson v. Carlson48 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1951)
  3. Hedberg v. Commissioner1972 T.C. Memo. 69

Most recent

  1. Hedberg v. Commissioner1972 T.C. Memo. 69
  2. Carlson v. Carlson48 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1951)
  3. Spratt v. Spratt185 N.W. 509 (Minn. 1921)

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 8

DepthCaseCited by
Merritt v. Merritt, 1 N.E. 605 (N.Y. 1885) 22
Bailey v. Bailey., 37 S.E. 502 (N.C. 1900) 16
Cooper v. Cooper, 56 N.E. 1059 (Ill. 1900) 10
Sellers v. Sellers, 40 N.E. 699 (Ind. 1895) 9
Campbell v. Campbell, 35 N.W. 522 (Iowa 1887) 8
Stiehm v. Stiehm, 72 N.W. 708 (Minn. 1897) 6
Rose v. Rose, 19 N.W. 195 (Mich. 1884) 3
Graves v. Graves, 143 A.D. 923 (1911) 1

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