Court Opinion

ID: 9727110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:20:20.742366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:33.671099
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
MORRIS, Judge-
Both parties having petitioned for a rehearing we ordered and heard a reargument of the case. We have again considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. It is pointed out that in our opinion we failed to make any disposition with respect to or mention of a “temporary order” made by Honorable Harold B. Nelson, district judge, dated May 28, 1954 and directing, among other things, that the defendant pay to the plaintiff as temporary support money for herself and children the sum of $22.50 each week during the pendency of the action. That order was served on the defendant on June 1, 1954. It was appealable under that portion of Section 14 — 0525 NDRC 1943 that provides:
“The disposition of the homestead by the court, and all orders and decrees touching the alimony and maintenance of either party to a marriage and for the custody, education, and support of the children are subject to revision on appeal in all particulars, including those which are stated to be in the discretion of the court.”
In Tonn v. .Tonn, 16 N.D 17, 111 N.W.-609, an order requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff counsel fees and maintenance pending the final determination of the action was held to be an appealable order. In Heller v- Heller, N.D., 81 N.W.2d 124, we heard and determined on the merits an appeal from such an order. See also Raszler v. Raszler, N.D., 80 N.W.2d 535; Hodous v. Hodous, 76 N.D. 392, 36. N.W.2d 554, 12 A.L.R.2d 1051.
South Dakota under a statute similar to ours holds that such orders are appealable. *237Schummer v. Schummer, 61 S.D. 305, 248 N.W. 492.
The order of May 28, 1954 was an appealable order. The time for appeal expired sixty days after June 1, 1954, the date of service. Section 28-2704 NDRC 1943. It became final as against a review on appeal at the expiration of that period.
Neither the judgment entered on remit-titur nor our decision on appeal therefrom involves the status or collectibility of payments that became due under the district court’s order of May 28, 1954 prior to January 14, 1959, the date of the judgment from which this appeal is taken and which is modified and affirmed in our opinion filed September 29, 1959. We adhere to that opinion.
SATHRE, C. J., and BURKE, TEIGEN and STRUTZ, JJ., concur.