Evans v. EvansEvans v. Evans
The purpose of this action was to recover alimony claimed to be due and unpаid, and the action is based upon a decree of the circuit court of the state of Illinois. The trial resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment denying recovery. The plaintiff appeals.
The parties were divorced on the 21st day of December, 1900, by decrеe of the circuit court for Cook
“That the complainant have and recover from the defеndant, George "Washington Evans, the sum of $60 per month from the date hereof, and that the defendаnt pay the said sum of $60 per month from date hereof for the support, maintenance and education of said children, Meta Morris Evans and George Chambliss Evans, and for her own support and maintenance, which monthly sum shall become due and "payable on or before the 15th day of the month for which the same is due.”
The oldest child attained the age of majority on March 18, 1911. The present action was instituted on April 12, 1911, and at that time it was claimed that there was duе and unpaid under the terms of the decree the sum of $2,160. The action did not come on for trial until May 27, 1920. Between the time when the complaint was filed and the date of the trial, a number of supplemental complaints were filed covering the amount which it was claimed was accruing from time to time under the decree. There is some dispute in the evidence as to whether anything was owing and unpaid at the time the action was instituted. The evidence, however, makes it reasonably clear that the respondent, at the time the action was begun, had paid all the sums which had accrued under the divorce decree up to the time that the оldest child became of age. The evidence upon this question is such that it leaves little room for controversy.
The question in the case is whether the appellant had the right to recover under the decree the amount there specified after one of the сhildren, or both, had
At the time this action was instituted, there had been no proceedings in the Illinois court for the purpose of modifying the decree and fixing the amount which was intended for the maintenance and education of the children as distinct from the sum which was intended for the support and maintenance of the appellant. It seems plain that, before the appellant could prevail, it was necessary that she allege and prove the sum which she was legally entitled to. In othеr words, it was necessary that she establish, after the children became
The judgpient will be affirmed.
Parker, G. J., Mitchell, and Bridges, JJ., concur.