The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-07-29
Law AFFECTING ALIMONY
JUDGMENT ONCE ENTERED, AN
OTHER SUIT CANNOT BEGIN
Case of Lucy A. Sprague Against
Delavan G. SpraEue Affirmed
The Supreme Court Reverses a
Decision in a Case Appealed by
the Minneapolis & Manitoba.

the Minneapolis & Manitoba.
The supreme court yesterday de-
creased the number of cases still re-
manning on the April calendar by three.
In two cases the findings of the trial
court were reversed, and in the case
of Lucy A. Sprague against De.avan
G. Sprague, the oruer of the lower court
was affirmed in an opinion written by
Judge Collins.
The court in this case decides quite
an important point, which has been
much in controversy in divorce pro-
ceed1ngs. The Spragues were married
IN Houston, Mimi, about fifteen years
ago. They lived continuously together
for the intervening period. and a year
ago the defendant sued Mrs. Sprague
for divorce. AT the time, she was in a
hospital in Portland, Or, and, as she
made no reply or return from the COM
plant, the trial judge found a verdict
for Mr.. Sprague. At the same time,
the district judge awarded $4,000 ali
mony to Mrs. Sprague, on finding that
Mr. Sprague's personal property was
valued at $4,000.
After the first case was settled up
and judgment entered, Mrs. Sprague
appealed to the court for additional
alimony amounting to $4,000, on the
grounds that her former husbands
property was actually valued at $780,,
600. The district court refused to grant
the additional alimony, and the case
was taken into the supreme court last
May. The supreme court holds that
the local court had jurisdiction over
the husbands property, inasmuch as
it was within the state, and further
says the court was In a position to
know the value of Mr.. Sprague's prop
erty. The supreme court holds that
judgment for alimony having once been
entered, an independent action to re-
cover additional alimony cannot be
maintained. The following is the syl-
labus Of the case:
Lucy A Sprague, appellant, vs.. De,avan G.
Sprague, respondent.
Syllabus. A husband brought an action
for divorce in the county Of his doIniciie in
and complaint to be personally served upon
the defendant wife while SIZE was tempo
rar,ly sojourning in another state her actual
domicile being that of her husband The
wife failed to appear answer and prac-
tically consented to the proceeding. In due
time the cause was tried and the court filed
findings Of fact with its conclusions of law
and order for judgment.
Among the facts found was one as to the
value Of the plaintiffs real and personal
property and in it's order for Judgment the
court awarded to defendant alimony in
certain sum to be paid by plaintiff to her.
Judgment was thereupon entered absolutely
this judgment is still In full force and effect.
Held. there being no allegations to the
contrary in the complaint in an action for
wife against the former husband, that the
presumption is that all of the husbands
property was within the jurisdic.io of the
court in which the divorce proceedings were
Instituted.
2 This being the presumption. 1t is held
that the court had jurisdiction over suca
property and for that reason could, under
Sfat
defendant wife.
8. Judgment for alinony having been en-
ton is res 1udicata between the parties ard
the defendant in that action cannot now
maintain an Independent action to recover
alfmony
A. The distinction in the facts between tn
case and that of Thurston VS.. Thurston.
So MINI. 279 pointed out. Order affirmed
RAILROAD WINS.
On an appeal taken to the supreme court
by the ST. Paul, Minneapolis Manitoba
railroad in suit brought against it by the
city of Benson, to recover the use OF certain
streets in the village of Benson which border
on and run across the original land grant of
TIE railway company, the supreme court re-
verses the order of the lower court and orders
Judgment for the railway company. Inc svi-
iebus: 49,
Village of Benson, an incorporated village
under the laws of Minnesota, respondent
vs. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Rail-
way Company ct al, appellants.
Syllabus-Evidence considered and he'd m
sufficient to sustain finding OF dedtca-
ton of the locus in quo as public street.
Order reversed. Buck. ].
ANOTHER CASE REVERSED.
Adoniram Clark, respondent. VS.. Charles
Butts ct al, defendants; Clara H. Greene,
appellant.
Sylabus-W having secured title to a lot
decided the same to c. who omitted to record
his deed and while 1t so remained un-
recorded obtained and duly entered and
docketcd a judgment against W. At this time
and .ong prior thereto the lot was wholly in
closed with substantial fence built by w
with funds belonging to G. There were no
buildings or other improvements upon the
lot, which was not cultivated or used for
any purpose. Upon the fence there were
posted at different places several signs
follows: For sale by w and H. the num-
Der and place Of their Office being given
w, one of the firm. who advertised this lot
for SALE the person in whose name the
title to the lot stood of record.
Held, that these fac:s were insufficient to
overthrow the notice given by the registry
that the title to the lot was in W.
Held, also that the judgment of G took
priority over the unrecorded deed of W to c,
under Gen. ST. 1894, sec. Also. which pro-
vides ''that every conveyance shall be void
as against any judgment lawfully OBJ
tanned at the suit of any party against the
person in whose name the title to such land
appears of record prior to the recording OF
such conveyance" Order affirmed and new