Court Opinion

ID: 9833918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:08:39.527696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.161665
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion in this case the writer made the statement that the record did not show that the judgment in favor of the wife for the support of the child is conditioned in any way on the life of the child. In motion for rehearing appellee calls our attention to the fact that this statement is not borne out by the record, and an examination of the record shows that the judgment awarded the wife $8 per month during the life of the child until he shall obtain the age of 16 years. We naturally desire, therefore, to correct the statement made in the original opinion. In this connection, however, the writer does not desire to shoulder more than his share of the erroneous statement adverted to. In appellant’s brief the following is taken from the statement of the nature and result of the suit: “And further rendered judgment in favor of said Grace Martin and against said Homer B. Martin for the sum of $8 per month until their said minor child, Jack Martin, should become 16 years of age.” In appellee’s brief the following statement is made: “Appellee adopts appellant’s statement of the nature and result of the suit, with the addition that appellee in her cross-bill prayed for the custody of Jack Martin, the child of the marriage, and the court in its judgment awarded her custody of such child.” It will be seen, therefore, that the erroneous statement made in the opinion was directly attributable to our reliance upon appellee’s agreement in her brief that appellant’s statement of the nature and result of the case was correct. We would be at liberty under these conditions, we think, not to correct the erroneous statement and to hold counsel strictly to what they have stated in their brief, but as it makes no difference in the result of the case, and as counsel seem to desire the correction, the explanation above set out is given. In our original opinion we also said: “But whether we construe the judgment as being in favor of the wife for the support of the child without any condition that the child shall live, or construe it simply as an award of more than temporary alimony to the wife, it has been definitely decided in the cases cited that it cannot validly be done.” ■
Counsel also request that we retax the costs which were taxed against the appellee, upon the theory that, this being a divorce suit and the expenses of this litigation being necessaries, the costs should be paid by the husband, because until the case is finally decided the parties are still husband and wife. We are not willing to decide that this is a sound proposition of law, and make no decision as to whether it is or not, but, as a matter of discretion, we feel inclined to exercise the discretion and to tax the costs of the appeal against the appellant, and it is accordingly so ordered.
The motion for rehearing in all other particulars is overruled.