(Download) "Blodgett Loan Co. v. Hansen" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Blodgett Loan Co. v. Hansen
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 15, 1930
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
1. Husband and Wife รข€” Settlement held contractual not decretal. Where the parties contracted respecting the amount of support money for the wife and minor child and the settlement of property rights, and thereafter the divorce decree specifically provided that the wife accepted the provisions of the contract in lieu of the relief sought by her original complaint in the divorce action, and none of the terms of the contract was embodied in the decree except the award of custody of the child to the wife, the husbands obligation under the settlement contract was contractual and not decretal, and hence actions to recover installments under such contract were maintainable in a court other than the one granting the divorce. 2. Reformation of Instruments รข€” Settlement contract not entitled to reformation. A divorced husband was not entitled to reformation of a property settlement contract which provided for monthly alimony for the support of the wife and the child, where the evidence failed to establish that by mutual inadvertence, mistake or omission the contract did not reflect the true understanding of the parties. 3. Contracts รข€” Mutual mistake proof requirements. Clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof is required to establish mutual mistake. 4. Appeal and Error. Appellant could not complain of the courts refusal to make a finding which was not requested. Page 454 5. Husband and Wife รข€” Proceeds of action for injuries not income within settlement contract. Under a property settlement contract which provided that, if the wife remarried or if she should otherwise become possessed of an "income" apart from her own earnings, the husbands obligation to pay monthly alimony should "terminate", "income" did not include proceeds of settlement of an action for injuries sustained by the wife, and hence the husbands obligation did not cease because of the wifes receipt of such proceeds. 6. Husband and Wife รข€” Terms of contract should have commonly accepted meaning. A husband of considerable education and business acumen would be assumed to have intended that the terms used in the property settlement agreement should be considered in their clear and commonly accepted meaning, courts duty being to construe, not to rewrite, the contract.