Bauman v. Bauman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from, the Circuit Court of Pulaski county, in Chancery. From the nature of the subject, it would seem impossible to ■ err in respect to the intention, and scope and extent of the provision of the statute {sec. 12, ch. 58, Dig.,) authorizing alterations in the allowance of alimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Circuit Court of Pulaski county, in Chancery. From the nature of the subject, it would seem impossible to ■ err in respect to the intention, and scope and extent of the provision of the statute {sec. 12, ch. 58, Dig.,) authorizing alterations in the allowance of alimony. See Miller vs. Miller, 6 J. C. R. 93. In England, the matter of alimony, whether temporary or permanent, is always subject to modification according to the varying circumstances, in the sound discretion of the Court, upon a view of all the facts. Poynter on Mar. and Div. 264 to 270, and cases cited; Rogers…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
This cause was brought here by appeal from the Chancery side of the Pulaski Circuit Court.
The bill was filed the 29th day of July, 1852. It recited that, on the 19th of September, 1849, the appellant filed her bill for divorce, alimony and other relief against her then husband, the appellee. That afterwards, she filed an amended and supplemental bill, bringing in another party, to whom the husband had made fraudulent conveyances of his property to defeat her suit, and to have a receiver appointed to take charge of the property. That service was had. That the appellee answered, and filed a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fischli v. FischliIndiana Supreme Court · 1825
3Cited by15 opinions
- Boyles v. BoylesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Brice v. BriceMontana Supreme Court · 1915
- Eikenbury v. EikenburyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1904
- Hyde v. LeisenringMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Myers v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.