Martin v. Martin
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1954, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Ramberg v. District Court of Ramsey County (Minn. 1954)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order of the district court finding the defendant in contempt of court for his failure to pay alimony as decreed in the previous divorce action and denying defendant’s *2 motion to readjudicate the question of alimony by eliminating all past alimony and attorney’s fees.
Plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings on May 7, 1937, and on March 8, 1938, the court awarded her an absolute divorce. The custody of a minor daughter, Kay, was given to plaintiff, and a minor son, James, was given to defendant. The defendant was ordered to pay alimony in the sum of $75 per month for the support of his wife and minor daughter. On plaintiff’s motion the court refused to amend that part of its decision relating to the custody of the minor son. Plaintiff appealed to this court, but the lower court’s order was affirmed. Martin v. Martin, 204 Minn. 621, 284 N. W. 294.
On January 30, 1940, the return date of an order to show cause why defendant should not be adjudged in contempt of court for his failure to pay alimony as ordered by the court in its decree of March 8, 1938, the hearing was adjourned to March 28, 1940, at which time plaintiff and defendant appeared, filed affidavits, and gave testimony. April 19, 1940, the court entered the order from which this appeal is taken.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought for the reason that she did not come into equity with clean hands, that is, that she failed to turn over in good faith the custody of the son James and that she turned the boy against defendant by telling the boy that if he stayed with his father his food would be poisoned and he would be sent to jail. Defendant admits that he is in arrears on his alimony payments but alleges that he is unable to pay because of his lack of employment although he has diligently tried to obtain work. The plaintiff denies all the defendant’s allegations. The defendant moved the court to re-adjudicate the question of alimony by eliminating alb past alimony and attorney’s fees because of his inability to pay them, and the court denied this motion. It was finally agreed by the parties that only the matters in controversy arising out of facts occurring since the entry of the decree should be adjudicated.
*3 Careful scrutiny of the record leads us to the conclusion that the court was justified in its conclusion and in sentencing defendant for contempt. His testimony fell far short of purging him of contempt. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss it in detail. Such being the case, we cannot disturb the trial court’s conclusion.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.