The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-01-27
IN THE FIRST CASE NAMED,


the appellant, James Thompson, fled
his bill in the Probate Court of Salt
Lake County for divorce, and the cause
was removed on motion of respondent
to the Third District Court. The de-
fendant filed an answer and a cross
complaint. Afterwards a decree
was entered in the case which recited
that this cause having this day been
brought on to be heard on the complaint
Of plaintiff, on file herein, taken as
confessed by the defendant, who ap-
peared by her attorney. w. Van Cott
and abandoned her nswer and de
tense herein " The decree recites tue
hearing of testimony in support of the
complaint, and theG proceeds, on mo-
ton of the plaintiff. to decree dissolu-
ton of the marriage between the par
ties, and to free them both from the
obligations thereof. There is no pro
vision whatever in relation to alimony,
but it further DEGREES as follows: 1t is
further ordered sdjudged and decreed
that the plaintiff pay to Rosalind Maui
Thompson, the issue of said plaintiff
and defendant, the sum OF $40 per
month for her sole and exclusive sup
port and education" and further pro
vides times and Places of payment and
manner of enforcing the same; on the
10th of January, the respondent (plain-
tiff below appealed to this court from
that part of the judgment or decree
providing for the payment to ROsalind
Maud as above set forth. The appeal
in this case must be claimed under the
first subdivision of section S2S, Laws OF
1884, and it will be eeen that it does no
authorize an appeal from a part of
final judgment. Section 500 prescribes
the manner in which an appeal may &c
taken. But it is cGntended that, as the
latter section provides that the notice
CT appeal shall safe the appeal from
the judgment or order appealed from.
'or some specific part hereof" it
authorizes an appeal from any part OF
final decree or judgment. These sec
tons are to be construed together.
They are the only provisions for ap-
peal, aud apply to all cases, legal ard
equitable, and the Legislature, in enact
ing them, intended to meet and pro-
vide for the various causes as they
should arise. Equitable cases often in
volve numerous parties acd variors in.
terests, and ia rendering fin judgment,
and in decreelng and adjusting what
may be supposed 10 be he requisites be.
tween the parties. it may happen that
some part of it, when segregated and
set apart from the balance, may in it
self constitute and be perfect judg-
ment, independent OF oil other parts of
the Judgment, and be in itself appeala-
BILE, or the court may in form combine
some two of the orders mentioned in |
nd; of
out such parts are, no doubt, appeala- ]
BILE without appealing from the whole, |
and are to be considered as final iudg- |
ments or orders, but it was only IN
tended to permit an appeal from final
judgment within the meaning of the |
statute as a whole 1t remains to be
whether the part of the de-
cree appealed from in this cause is
ippealable under this rule. The
statute provides, that when di- |
zorce is decreed the court shall make
'Reh order in relation to the children
md property of the parties and the
OF the vile, and such p0r-
lon OF the children as may be awarded
o her, SIS may be just and equitable.
Provided, further,
hat the parties may, with the approval
f'the court, themselves agree upon the
Iistri button of the property and dispo
ition IF the children. Several authori-
les are here quoted. and the opinion
oncludes: 1--WE think, in deducing
rom the language OF The statute, that
Hestions of aiimony and care and
uppert OF offspring are but incidents to
divorce, and that when the court as
umes 10 destroy The relation which has
rought children into existence, they
hould Become wards of the court, and
hat as an iHcident thereto, it may pro- !,
ide for them The district court, in l
ran ting the relief asked for by appel
Int, has imposed certain conditions con.
sTning the maintenance of one who is !
escr bed las the issue of the parties" :
he did not wish to accept relief on such
1nditions, he should Lave appealed
ora the whole decree. and thereby put d
ne court in position to determ inc the ),
ltire controversy. Ii the court had u
Of made the provision appealed from
favor of the child. it might, in lieu
lereof, have provided for her BIZ put
ng the respondent in possession of the E
scessarv means for that puEgose. We n