[DOWNLOAD] "Kemmerle v. Kemmerle" by Supreme Court of Kansas # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Kemmerle v. Kemmerle
- Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
- Release Date : January 09, 1951
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by This was a divorce case. The present appeal is from an order of
the district court finding defendant guilty of contempt for his
failure to pay the balance of alimony, attorneys' fees and costs
allowed plaintiff. Counsel for appellant raises two points:
First, the decree for the payment of these items is not such
that a contempt proceeding will lie to enforce payment. Second,
that the evidence upon the hearing for contempt was insufficient
to support the order made from which the appeal is taken. The pertinent facts may be stated briefly as follows: Plaintiff
and defendant were married in 1943. It was the second marriage
for each of them. Plaintiff had two children by her first
marriage and defendant had one. The ages of these children are
not stated, but apparently they were adults at the time the order
appealed from was entered. After they were married the parties
lived on a farm for about five years, but their relations were
not congenial, to the extent that there was a separation. Early
in 1948 defendant contracted to sell his farm for $25,000 and
give possession March 1st. About February 20th of that year he
was conducting a sale of his livestock, farm machinery and other
farm property. Plaintiff brought this action on February 20,
1948, and by a procedure, not now complained of, had the proceeds
of the sale, amounting to a little over $6,000, impounded in the
Easton State Bank to await the further order of the court. The
trial was delayed because of the illness of Judge Wendorff, the
presiding judge of the district court of Leavenworth county, and
the Hon. Lawrence F. Day of Atchison, judge of the district court
of the second judicial district of this state, was duly selected
as judge pro tem to try the action. Defendant filed an answer and
cross petition and set up an alleged antenuptial agreement which
he asked to have enforced. On one occasion Judge Wendorff
permitted defendant to withdraw $500 or $600 of the funds
impounded and on another occasion Judge Day permitted defendant
to withdraw $300 additional from the impounded funds. Apparently
the case was vigorously contested and there were as many as three
hearings for the taking of testimony and the court was requested
to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.