Sprague v. Sprague
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Houston county to recover permanent alimony. Defendant demurred to the complaint on all of the statutory grounds, except a defect of parties, and from an order, Whytock, J., sustaining the demurrer, plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Houston county to recover permanent alimony. Defendant demurred to the complaint on all of the statutory grounds, except a defect of parties, and from an order, Whytock, J., sustaining the demurrer, plaintiff appealed. So far as the judgment in the action for divorce attempted to ad-, judicate upon the property rights of the parties, it was void for want of jurisdiction in the court to adjudicate upon that subject, since the complaint contained no prayer for such relief. See Hoh v. Hoh, 84 Wis. 378; 3 Wait, Pr. 536, 606; Simonson v. Blake, 12 Abb. Pr. 331;…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to a complaint in an action instituted by a divorced wife to recover alimony. While the demurrer was interposed upon several grounds, the questions resolve themselves into an inquiry as to the sufficiency of the facts stated to constitute a cause of action.
The controlling facts, as pleaded, may be presented as follows:
Plaintiff and defendant became husband and wife in the county of Fillmore, in this state, in the year 1882, and thereafter lived together as husband and wife in this state until the summer of 1896. They have no children. Their residence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thurston v. ThurstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cohen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Eclipse Architectural Group, Inc. v. LamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Hopping v. HoppingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
- Haven v. TrammellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.