Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 Wis. 352

Maxwell v. Sawyer

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1895

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1895-05-15

Scott Sloau, Circuit Judge. This is a proceeding begun in the county court of Dodge county by petition of Angelina M. Maxwell for construction of the will of ’William L. Maxwell, deceased. Angelina M. Maxwell was the wife of the deceased up to the 9th day of December, 1884, when a judgment of absolute divorce was rendered in an action brought by William L. Maxwell.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It is very clear that the allowance made to the wife by the decree of divorce was alimony pure and simple. It is so denominated in the judgment. It consists of an allotment of sums payable at regular intervals from year to year, and it is not declared to be a division of the estate; hence it must be construed as alimony.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 2 Wis. 2d 509 - Clayton v. Traver

Relies on Campbell v. Campbell · Blake v. Blake

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1895-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1958

10 state decisions

401895190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Winslow, J.

¶1It is very clear that the allowance made to the wife by the decree of divorce was alimony pure and simple. It is so denominated in the judgment. It consists of an allotment of sums payable at regular intervals from year to year, and it is not declared to be a division of the estate; hence it must be construed as alimony. Blake v. Blake, 68 Wis. 303. The general principle is well established, also, that alimony continues only during the joint lives of the parties. It ends when the husband dies. Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206, see p. 216, and cases there cited; 2 Bish. Mar., Div. & Sep. § 836. Nor could it be shown, as was attempted to be shown by the petitioner, that there was a parol agreement between the parties, before the entry of the divorce judgment, that the alimony adjudged should continue during the life of the petitioner. The effect of such testimony, if it could have any effect, would be to contradict the terms and legal effect of the judgment, and this cannot be done. 1 Freem. Judgm. § 275. The manifest result of these principles is that the circuit court was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to both provisions^ *355but only to the' provision made by the will, the provision made by the judgment having ceased on the death of the testator.

¶2By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

/90/wis/352 · .json · Public domain