The statute provides that after a divorce is granted subsequent changes may be made by the court in reference to the maintenance of the wife, when circumstances render them expedient. Bev., § 2537. Independent of this statutory provision courts of equity had the power, at all times, on proper application, and on any material change in the circumstances of the parties, to increase or reduce the allowance of alimony, whether temporary or permanent. Bishop on Mar. & Div., § 593, and cases cited in notes.
Applications for changes in allotments of permanent alimony are not of frequent occurrence, and where such allotments have been once fairly settled, any application for change ought, evidently, to be carefully scrutinized. The court, where the husband alleges an alteration of circumstances as a ground for reduction, wiE consider whether it has been brought about by any improper conduct on his part. Ib. Such allotments ought not to be changed unless the party applying therefor shows substantial reasons which in justice and equity demand change. We are of opinion that the showing in this case is not sufficient to warrant a reduction of the amount of alimony decreed to the appellee. It is true the appellant is shown to be advanced in life and not of very robust health; that at the time the decree was rendered he was’reputed to be wealthy; and that now rumor reports him to have met with pecuniary losses, etc. It is not shown by competent evidence what losses he has in fact sustained, how they occurred, whether by unprofitable or reckless speculations, of what income appellant is now possessed, nor are the circumstances of the appellee shown. The appellant himself was a competent witness and could have testified to and shown
Affirmed.