215 Wis. 353 | Wis. | 1934
The parties agree that the oral statement of the court operated as a valid judgment of divorce, under the rule of Zahorka v. Geith, 129 Wis. 498, 109 N. W. 552, wherein it was held that an oral announcement from the bench that a divorce was granted so operated without anything further being done in the matter. They differ, however, as to the kind of divorce that was granted. The appellants claim it is a divorce a vinculo; the respondent that it is a divorce from bed and board. The appellants concede that if it is a divorce from bed and board, Mrs. Kehl is the lawful widow of the deceased and entitled to share as such in his estate.
Counsel for the appellants base their contention that the judgment should be construed as one a vinculo on the fact that, as they claim, when the trial judge announced the judgment he manifestly understood that the judgment was of
The argument is not without'force, but we consider that under the circumstances involved the prayer of the complaint should govern the nature of the divorce. The clerk’s entry on his minutes is not inconsistent with such a judgment. Cruel and inhuman treatment is one of the grounds for which such a judgment may be granted. Secs. 247.07 (5) and 247.08 (1); Stats. It is true that a court may grant a divorce a viñado although the prayer of the complaint be for one from bed and board. Sec. 247.09, Stats.; Shequin v. Shequin, 161 Wis. 183, 152 N. W. 823. But the prayer of the complaint, with nearly all judges, we believe, controls the nature of the. judgment-■ granted by the court,
The trial judge announced that he would determine the property rights of the parties later, and that until he did so the order for alimony made pending suit should continue. The court may make a final division of property on granting a divorce from bed and board as well as in granting one a vinculo. The intention to consider what should be done in that respect is thus not inconsistent with intention to grant a judgment.such as was prayed for. Had such a division been made, it would have barred the plaintiff from sharing in his estate after the defendant’s death. Gallagher v. Gallagher, supra. But none having been niade, she retained her rights in that respect.
As a general rule judgments must conform to the pleadings and the relief granted is limited by that demanded in the complaint, both as to character and amount. 3 Freeman, Judgments, 2688. When judgments are ambiguous they are construed in accordance with the pleadings. Succession of Durnford, 1 La. Ann. 92; Peniston v. Somers, 15 La. Ann. 679. The whole record may be gone into in construing such a judgment. Fleenor v. Driskill, 97 Ind. 27; Clay v. Hildebrand, 34 Kan. 694, 9 Pac. 466 ; Fowler v. Doyle, 16 Iowa, 534; Four Mile L. & C. Co. v. Slusher, 107 Ky. 664, 55 S. W. 555; Walker’s Ex’r v. Page, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 636. But taking into consideration the entire proceedings before t'he court that entered the divorce judgment, we are of opinion that the judgment should be construed as one of divorce from bed and board.
The respondent contends that the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings in the circuit court upon the trial of the divorce case is not receivable in evidence because not properly
We feel that we should not close this opinion without warning the bar against the lax and careless practice followed in the divorce action involved herein. An oral announcement of a judgment from the bench should be followed by findings by the trial judge. Sec. 270.33, Stats. Entry of a formal judgment complete in its terms should follow the findings. This is particularly true of divorce actions. Counsel owe to their clients the duty to see that these things are done.
By the Court. — The judgment of the county court is affirmed.