Case Name: Camille Foster Craig, Appellee, v. Roy E. Craig, Appellant
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1936-06-15
Citations: 144 Kan. 155
Docket Number: No. 32,697
Parties: Camille Foster Craig, Appellee, v. Roy E. Craig, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
No. 32,697
Camille Foster Craig, Appellee, v. Roy E. Craig, Appellant.
(59 P. 2d 1101)
Opinion on motion for clarification of opinion filed June 15, 1936.
Hal E. Harlan, A. M. Johnston, both of Manhattan, and James P. Coleman, of Junction City, for the appellant.
James V. Humphrey and Arthur S. Humphrey, both of Junction City, for the appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court w>as delivered by
Wedell, J.:
Appellee requests clarification of opinion in this case, reported in 143 Kan. 624, 56 P. 2d 464, relative to the former award for permanent alimony. We see no occasion for clarification of the opinion. The permanent award was for the sum of $2,400. Since no decree for divorce had been rendered by the trial court, we directed that court to render such decree, and in pursuance of the decree, also directed the trial court to render a new judgment for alimony in accordance with the terms and provisions of the former award. The former award was for the sum of $2,400 and not for $2,400 less temporary payments pending appeal. The new judgment for permanent alimony must, therefore, clearly be as formerly directed, namely, for the sum of $2,400.