Holmes v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Steele county, Buckham, J., denying a motion to modify a judgment theretofore entered in the action by which plaintiff was awarded $6oo alimony.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The facts relevant to this appeal are these. On February 13, 1893, the plaintiff secured a judgment herein for an absolute divorce against the defendant on account of his adultery, and for alimony in the gross sum of $600, pa3^able in one year. She appealed from the judgment on the ground that she was also entitled to dower in the defendant’s estate, but the judgihent was affirmed. See 54 Minn. 352, 56 N. W. 46. The plaintiff took no steps to collect the judgment for alimony until the ten-years limitation was about to expire, when she brought an action to renew it. Nor during this time did…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Semrow v. SemrowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Weld v. WeldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Beidman v. GoodellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Barbaras v. BarbarasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Levine v. LevineOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Spratt v. SprattSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Haskell v. HaskellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Bissell v. BissellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
- Gates v. GatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.