Scott v. Scott

Decided July 29, 1896

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1896-07-29

Hon. A. J. Plowman, Judge. Action to annul a marriage contract. Defendant had judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. It is not contempt of court to fail to pay alimony where one neither has nor can obtain it, and where he has not causelessly either put it out of his hands or failed to receive it. Wight-man v. Wightman, 45 111. 167. Service of the order upon the attorneys is insufficient. § 5337, Comp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1896-07-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1984

4 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 →

Haney, J.

¶1This action is to annul a marriage. Defendant answered, and obtained an order requiring plaintiff to pay temporary alimony, with which he failed to comply, and his complaint and action were dismissed. From the judgment of dismissal he appeals.

¶2The order requiring temporary alimony directed service to be made upon plaintiff’s attorneys; the judgment of dismissal recites that service was so made; and, as we understand the record, neither of the orders or rules to show cause which resulted in such judgment was personally served upon defendant. Following Larson v. Larson (S. D.), 67 N. W. 842, wherein it was held that ‘‘an order or judgment requiring the payment of temporary alimony or counsel fees must, by the law of this state, be served upon the party against whom the same is awarded, before he can be brought into contempt for a refusal to compiy therewith,’’ this judgment must be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings according to law.