Case Name: CUSTER v. CUSTER
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1912-08-17
Citations: 41 Utah 575
Docket Number: No. 2358
Parties: CUSTER v. CUSTER.
Judges: PRICK, C. J., and STEATJP, J., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 575–580

Head Matter:
CUSTER v. CUSTER.
No. 2358.
Decided August 17, 1912.
On Application for Rehearing October 8, 1912
(126 Pac. 880).
1. Divoece — Appeal—Time for ’Taking — Final and Interlocutory Decrees. An appeal from a final decree of divorce, based solely on the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the interlocutory decree was based, taken more than six months after the interlocutory decree, but within six months after the final decree, does not bring up for review the proceedings resulting in the interlocutory decree, or findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it is based. (Page 576.)
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.
2. Divorce — Grounds—Desertion—Adultery. In an action by a wife for separate maintenance on the ground of desertion, the husband filed a counterclaim for divorce on the ground of her desertion, and she counterclaimed by charging the husband with adultery. The court granted an interlocutory decree of divorce in favor of the husband on findings that the' wife, without cause, deserted him and lived apart from him for several years, when she married another man and cohabited with him, and that the husband, believing, in good faith, the information received by his daughter and son-in-law that the wife had obtained a divorce and had married another man, married another woman and cohabited with her. The court, after the filing of the interlocutory decree, filed a finding that there was no evidence that since the commencement of the action the husband had cohabited with the other woman, but he had lived with her as his wife prior thereto, and .thereafter granted the husband a final decree of divorce. Held, that the finding filed after the interlocutory decree was not inconsistent with the findings on which the interlocutory decree was granted; and on an appeal taken more than six months after the rendition of the interlocutory decree, but within six months of the rendition of the final decree, the findings on the interlocutory decree, on which the final finding was based, cannot be reviewed. (Page 577.)
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Hon. M. L. Ritchie, Judge.
Action by Minnie C. Ouster against Ernest L. Custer.
J udgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Aeeirmed.
J ames D. Pardee for -appellant.
Powers & Mcurioneaux and J. W. McKmney for respondent.
Parsons v. Parsons, 40 Utah, 602, 122 Pac. 907.

Opinion:
McCARTY, J.'
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for separate maintenance on the ground of desertion. The defendant answered, denying that he had deserted plaintiff. He also filed a counterclaim for divorce on the ground that plaintiff, without cause, had deserted him. The plaintiff filed a reply to the answer and counterclaim' of defendant, denying the allegations of desertion, and charging the defendant with adultery with one Marie Custer. The court found on the issues thus made up in favor of the defendant, and on the 6th day of December, 1910 , rendered judgment in favor of defendant dissolving the marriage relation theretofore existing between the parties. Ofi January 9, 1911, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and interlocutory decree were filed. On July 20, 1911, the final decree, based on the same findings of fact and conclusions of law as the interlocutory decree, was duly filed and entered of which the plaintiff had notice. On January 10, 1912, plaintiff filed and served notice of appeal to this court.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it was not taken within six months from the time plaintiff received notice of the finding and entry of the interlocutory decree. No new or additional findings of fact or conclusions of law were made and filed! in the case after the filing of the interlocutory decree. Nor does the final decree contain any matter not found in the interlocutory decree. In fact, appellant, by her assignments of error, d'oes not seek to review any matter not contained in. tie interlocutory decree, or in the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which, it is based.
As we have observed, the interlocutory decree was filed and) entered January 9, 1911. The appeal was taken January 10, 1912, more than a year after the filing of that decree. Therefore none of the proceedings leading up to and resulting in the interlocutory decree are before this court for review. The case comes clearly within the doctrine announced in the case of Parsons v. Parsons, 40 Utah, 602, 122 Pac. 907, recently decided by this court. In that case it is said:
"And since plaintiff's appeal is only from the final decree, and since she seeks no review of ahy proceeding resulting in that decree, and seeks a review only of proceedings resulting in the interlocutory decree, from which no appeal has been, and could not have been, taken at the time of this appeal, it follows that there is no reviewable question before the court."
The .appeal in this case having been taken within six months from the time of the filing of the final decree, the motion to dismiss must be overruled; but, as the appeal presents no question for review, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs to respondent.
PRICK, C. J., and STEATJP, J., concur.