Case ID: mo_28/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scott, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thornton, Plaintiff in Error, v. Thornton, Defendant in Error.
    1. Case affirmed.
    
      Error to Henry Circuit ■ Court.
    
    
      Wright, for plaintiff in error.
    I. A divorce should have heen- granted on the evidence. (Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, 442; Burgess v. Burgess, 4 Eng. Eccl. R.' 812, 527 ; 4 Barb. 217.) Defendant was at least entitled to maintenance for a reasonable time.
    
      Rylcmd Sf Son and Freeman, for defendant in error.
    
      I. The testimony makes out no case against defendant. (26 Mo. 855 ; 18 Mo. 308 ; 24 Mo. 97.)
   Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We have examined the record in this case. No question of law is presented for our determination ; neither branch of the case is at all supported by the evidence — that for the divorce, nor that for alimony. The statement of the evidence, as preserved in the record, is a full vindication of the judgment of the court, and it is of such a character that it needs no argument or comment to show that it warrants the decree. Its bare statement is sufficient to satisfy the mind that the case made in the petition is not sustained, and we deem it unnecessary to set it out as it could serve no useful pur-

pose. Affirmed;

Judge Richardson concurs. Judge Nap-ton absent.