Plankers v. Plankers
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.
There are two appeals. Plaintiff appealed from an order canceling $1,200 accrued alimony and reducing the alimony from $100 per month to $50 per month. Plaintiff also appealed from an order discharging an order to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt of court and punished accordingly.
Defendant is in default in paying alimony to the extent of $1,200. Under our statute the court has power to cancel accrued instalments of alimony. Hartigan v. Hartigan, 142 Minn. 274, 171 N. W. 925; Bensel v. Hall, 177 Minn. 178, 225 N. W. 104. We do not follow the “vested rights” theory.
While…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hartigan v. HartiganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Bensel v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Plankers v. PlankersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kiesow v. KiesowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Cederberg v. GunstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Kate v. KateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Atwood v. AtwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Eggers v. EggersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.