Case ID: ky_185/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "William Rogers Clay, Commissioner", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McKinney v. McKinney.
    (Decided October 10, 1919.)
    Appeal from "Warren Circuit Court.
    1. Divorce — Alimony—Appeal.—While the Court of Appeals lias no power to reverse a decree of divorce, it may review the decree to determine whether alimony was properly awarded.
    2 Divorce — -Alimony.—Where it was shown that the husband had at least $2,000.00 and probably more, and was receiving a salary of $1,500.00 a year, an allowance of $2,000.00 alimony to his wife waa not excessive.
    B. F. WALLACE and SIMS, RODES & SIMS for appellant.
    BRADBURN & BASHAM and OLIVER & DIXON for appellee.
   Opinion of the Court by

William Rogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

Christine McKinney sued her husband, T. D. McKinney, for divorce and alimony. He counterclaimed for divorce on the ground that she was guilty of such lewd and lascivious behavior as proved her to be unchaste. On final hearing’ the chancellor held that the charge of unchastity was not sustained by the evidence, but that plaintiff’s ground of divorce was fully established, and entered a decree giving plaintiff a divorce and awarding her alimony in the sum of $2,000.00. Defendant appeals.

While we have no power to reverse the decree of divorce, we may, as we are asked to do, review the correctness of the decree for the purpose of determining whether or not alimony was properly awarded. Caudill v. Caudill, 172 Ky. 460, 189 S. W. 431. It would serve no good purpose to detail the evidence. The case turns on the credibility of the witnesses. Since the chancellor was on the ground and knew the parties and their witnesses, he was in a better position than we are to determine what effect should be given to the testimony, and after a careful consideration of the testimony, we see no reason for disturbing his finding.

Defendant’s testimony as to how much property he had was very evasive. It is certain that he had at least $2,000.00, and probably several hundred dollars in excess of that. In addition to this, it was shown that he was a railway mail clerk and received a salary of $1,500.00 a year. Under these circumstances, alimony in the sum of $2,000.00 was not excessive.

Judgment affirmed.