Hampton v. Allee

Decided February 8, 1896

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1896-02-08

Error from Atchison District Coitrt. The plaintiff in error, as- plaintiff below, filed an amended petition, which reads as follows : “That for a number of years prior to November 19, 1884, the plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife ; that on said date this plaintiff was divorced from said defendant, and the custody, control, and management of plaintiff and defendant’s minor children, Hattie May Allee, then about eight years of age, and William F. Allee, then aged…

Relies on Harris v. Harris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1896-02-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1942

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Allen, J.:

¶2The ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s amended petition was right. *463The decree of divorce rendered by the district court of Shawnee county contains no provision imposing a liability on the defendant for the support of the minor children, and it has been held that no such liability exists independent of the decree. (Harris v. Harris, 5 Kan. 46.) The petition and exhibit “B” thereto attached make no claim for unpaid alimony, but recovery is sought for the support of the children only.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.