Maxwell v. Sawyer
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lally v. Lally (Wis. 1913)
- Clayton v. Traver (Wis. 1958)
- Masters v. Masters (Neb. 1952)
- Littig v. Littig (Wis. 1938)
- Kuether v. State (Wis. 1921)
- Yates v. Yates (Wis. 1917)
- Norris v. Norris (Wis. 1916)
- Brenger v. Brenger (Wis. 1910)
- Von Trott v. Von Trott (Wis. 1903)
- Rice v. Andrews (New York Supreme Court 1926)
- Hazard v. Hazard (Ill. App. Ct. 1916)
- Madden v. Madden (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1907)
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
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. 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^
By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.