St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State (Okl.) Sipes v. Dickinson (Okl.) 216 217 Sirmay, State v. (Utah) 748 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Brown (Okl.) 136 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. C. H. Cannon & Son (Okl.) 231 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cox (Okl.).. 130 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Kral (Okl.). 177 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., Lilly v. (Okl.) 502 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Walker (Okl.).. 492 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Williams (Okl.) Salander v. Judy (Or.). 152 Skagit County, Shea v. (Wash.) .1061 899 363 361 896 686 732 .1135 402 Sandeen v. Russell Lumber Co. (Mont.).. 913 San Francisco Credit Clearing House v. MacDonald (Cal. App.). 324 964 San Francisco Mercantile Union v. Muller (Cal. App.). Spears, Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. (Okl.) 228 Speer v. People (Colo.). 768 113 Spencer, Ex parte (Okl. Cr. App.). 557 Sarbach v. Sarbach (Kan.) .1052 Spencer, Couch v. (Okl.) 647 Savage, Herring v. (Okl.) 167 Savage, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. (Okl.) 656 Sperry & Hutchinson Co. V. Tacoma (Wash.) ..1060 Sawyers v. Schuler (Okl.) 199 S. Bachman & Co., John Bollman Co. v. (Cal. App.). Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Homewood (Okl.). 196 Schermerhorn, Rains v. (Kan.) 883 Stanard, Gaffney v. (Okl.). 510 Schick v. Warren Mortg. Co. (Kan.). 872 Stapish, Behne v. (Wash.) .1002 Schildt v. Board of Com'rs of Montrose State, Allison v. (Okl. Cr. App.) State, Ambler v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 946 .1128 Schively, State v. (Wash.). .1020 State v. Ash (Wash.) 995 Schlott, People v. (Cal.). 846 State, Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Schmershall, Barton v. (Idaho). 385 (Okl.) 232 State v. Baker (Wash.). 335 Schonwald v. Ragains (Okl.) 203 State v. Bauer (Nev.) 76 State v. District Court of Second Judicial 270 Sterling Min. Co., Cantrall v. (Or.). 42 940 State, Dupree v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 1132 Stevens, Kennerly & Spragins Co. v. Du 731 laney (Okl.). 165 943 242 Stevens, Kennerly & Spragins Co. v. Dulaney (Okl.). 166 268 Stewart, Donart v. (Or.). 763 544 .1132 Stewart, Thom v. (Cal.). ...1069 State, Hargraves v. (Okl. Cr. App.) .1132 Superior Court of Kern County, Boust v., two cases (Cal.). 956 (Okl.) 163 .1132 Superior Court of Marin County, Rigby v. (Cal.) 958 588 State v. Holmes (Wash.). 345 Superior Court of Orange County, Lapique v. (Cal. App.). 80 State v. Hornaday (Wash.). 322 State, Hughes v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 554 Superior Court of San Joaquin County, 475 Sutter v. International Harvester Co. of State v. Justus (Kan.) 877 State v. King (Kan.). 896 Sutton, Lewis v. (Idaho). 911 State v. King (Wash.). State v. Kruger (Nev.). 323 Sylvester v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. 483 Co. (Colo. App.).. 62 State, Lee v. (Okl. Cr. App.) State, Lee v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 1132 1111 Sylvester, J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. (Colo. App.). 61 State, McGraw v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Moon v. two cases (Okl. Cr. App.) 1133 State, Parker v. (Okl. Cr. App.) State, Peyton v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Price v. (Okl. Cr. App.) .1134 Tintinger, Bailey v. (Mont.). 558 Toney, Vorhees v. (Okl.) 944 Tong v. Maher (Mont.). .1134 Town of Goltry v. Grossman (Okl. Cr. ..1134 App.) 194 Tacoma Ry. & Power Co., Richmond v. 242 (Wash.) 351 1133 Talley v. State, two cases (Okl. Cr. App.)1134 ..1118 Tate v. Holly (Colo. App.)... 58 86 101 Taylor v. Canadian Coal Co. (Okl.). 163 1127 .1128 .1128 Territory, McSpadden v. (Okl. Cr. App.) 1105 917 Terry v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). 380 Teter v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 1110 Thom v. Stewart (Cal.)... 559 .1115 .1069 267 Thurmond, Fairbanks-Morse & Co. V. 987 (Okl.) 167 575 552 279 Kreigh v. (Kan.) 890 .1102 302 Westman, Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. 89 16 65 523 156 Falls Mill Co., Koenig V. Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co. (Or.)...... 36 Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., White, Webermeier v. (Colo. App.) ..1126 289 159 .1122 Usher, Cone v. (Kan.) .1049 Wiley v. Miller (Kan.). 888 Williams, Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New 815 Vorhees v. Toney (Okl.). 552 Williams v. Hirschfield (Okl.). 539 Vulcan Iron Works Co., Scott v. (Okl.).. 186 Williams, Runo v. (Cal.). Walker, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Okl.) 492 Willoburn Ranch Co. v. Yegen (Mont.). Williams v. Johnson (Okl.)... 485 .1082 Wall, Shore v. (Colo. App.). .1124 Winfrey v. Clapp Kan.). .1055 Wallace v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) .1135 Winkleman v. Cowan (Kan.) 896 Walsh Lumber Co. v. Chaney (Wash.).. 179 10 Winningham, Felkner v. (Okl.). 534 174 881 Warren Mortg. Co., Schick v. (Kan.).... 872 Washington Nat. Bank, Thompson (Wash.) ..... Winterscheid v. Reichle (Mont.) 740 678 V. Wood, Nelson v. (Okl.) 1103 606 Waugh, Blunk v. (Okl.) 717 Woodbury, Ostrom v. (Cal. App.) 825 234 Webermeier v. White (Colo. App.) .1126 Woste v. Rugge (Wash.).. 988 Wright v. Chilcott (Or.).. 765 Weiss Alfalfa Stock Food Co., Clark v. (Kan.) Wright, People v. (Cal. App.). 835 895 Wertz v. Barnard (Okl.).. 649 Wright Restaurant Co. v. Seattle Restaurant Co. (Wash.).... 349 (Supreme Court of Washington. March 28, cruelty. The husband by cross-complaint 1912.) 1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1011*)-REVIEWWEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. Where there is evidence to support the findings of the trial judge, they will not be disturbed on appeal, although the evidence would have supported contrary findings. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3983-3989; Dec. Dig. 8 1011.*] 2. DIVORCE (§ 249*)-DIVISION OF PROPERTY. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 989, authorizing a trial judge in an action for divorce to make such distribution of the community property as appears just, where the property is subject to a heavy indebtedness, an award of the entire property to the husband, subject to the payment of a monthly allowance to the wife for the support of herself and the children, is proper. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. & 701-705, 707, 709, 710, 712; Dec. Dig. § 249.*] 3. DIVORCE (§ 304*)-JUDGMENT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN. In an action by a wife for divorce, where there is evidence strongly supporting the husband's contention that the wife had been guilty of adultery, although the court made no finding to that effect, it was proper to award the custody of the children to the wife for a limited period only, leaving their future custody to be determined by the court at the expiration of that period. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. § 796; Dec. Dig. § 304.*] Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; Ralph Kauffman, *Judge. Action for divorce by Carmela Brogna against Gabrielle Brogna. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. John B. Van Dyke, Roger Marchetti, and Arthur E. Griffin, for appellant. E. E. Wager, for respondent. asked the custody of the children, and a decree of divorce for cruel treatment and adultery. The trial court entered a judgment by which it was decreed that the real and personal property be awarded to the defendant; that the care, custody, and control of the children be awarded to the plaintiff for the period of four years from the date of the decree; that for the same period the defendant pay plaintiff $30 per month for the maintenance and support of the minor children; that he pay her $25 per month for her own support for the period of four years, or until the further order of the court; that said sums be a lien upon a portion of the real estate awarded to defendant; that he pay all their indebtedness and all costs incurred in this action; that he pay a $50 fee to plaintiff's attorney, in addition to $250 already paid; and that at the expiration of four years from the date of the decree application may be made to the court for the future disposition of the minor children, and for an additional allowance for their maintenance and support. From this decree the plaintiff has appealed. [1] Appellant contends a decree of divorce should have been awarded to her. While there was evidence which, if regarded as credible by the trial court, would have been sufficient to support a decree in her favor, there was also evidence in support of the cross-complaint sufficient to sustain the de cree in respondent's favor. We are in no position to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, or the weight of the conflicting evidence. That was done by the trial judge, and his findings will not be disturbed. [2] Shortly before the commencement of the action, appellant conveyed to respondent all her interest in the community real estate. In her complaint she alleged that her deed had been obtained by threats, duress, and intimidation, and asked that it be set aside. She now contends that the trial judge erred in refusing this demand. We cannot find that the deed was thus obtain CROW, J. This is an action for divorce. Plaintiff and defendant had two minor daughters, nine and six years of age, had accumulated property of the value of $7,300, and were indebted in the sum of $3,009.74. The wife as plaintiff asked the custody of For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes 122 P.-1 ed; but, be that as it may, the trial judge, under section 989, Rem. & Bal. Code, was authorized to make such distribution of the property as should appear just and equitable, having due regard to the respective merits of the parties. This he did. The property was subject to a heavy indebtedness, which the respondent was required to assume and pay. The evidence was sufficient to satisfy the trial judge that a reasonable monthly allowance to appellant for the maintenance of herself and children would afford her better support than would an interest in the incumbered real estate. From the record we are satisfied that the allowance thus made was just and equitable. [3] Complaint is made of the order awarding the custody of the children to appellant for four years only, and not permanently. The record justifies this order. There was evidence which strongly supported respondent's contention that the appellant had been guilty of adultery, although no such finding was made. If during the next four years appellant conducts herself in a proper manner, there is no reason why a further order may not then be made, continuing the children in her custody, and making a further allowance for their support. The controlling questions on this appeal are questions of fact. On the conflicting evidence shown by the record we conclude the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered. 1. MORTGAGES (§ 489*)—FORECLOSURE BY ACTION-DECREE-FURTHER DECREE Or Order. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1126, which provides that, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant may pay into court at any time before final judgment the amount due, and that proceedings therein shall be stayed subject to enforcement upon a subsequent default in the payment of any installment of the principal or interest, and that in the final judgment the court shall direct at what time and upon what default any subsequent execution shall issue, and sections 1127 and 1128, which provide that after final judgment the property may be sold in parcels or as a whole, a decree may be entered judicially determining the amount then due and to become due, and providing for subsequent orders of sale to satisfy the maturing installments; the provisions contemplating but one foreclosure proceeding, and that the subsequent proceedings shall be merely matters of detail for the protection of the mortgagee. [sequent proceedings to determine the amount subsequently due, the fact that in subsequent judgment is rendered, instead of an order proproceedings an order in the nature of a second vided for in the original decree, is harmless. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4240-4247; Dec. Dig. § 1073.*] 3. MORTGAGES (§ 497*) -ACTION TO FORE CLOSE-CONCLUSIVENESS OF DECREE. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1126, which provides that an action to foreclose a mortgage shall be satisfied by payment into court of the forced by the subsequent default in the payprincipal and interest due, subject to be enment of any installment, and that in the final judgment the court. shall direct when subsequent execution shall issue, and section 1127, providing for sale of part of the premises, with judgment to remain and to be enforceable upon any subsequent default, a decree, finding that part of the installments have not matured, and providing that it shall remain and be enforced as to subsequent defaults, conclusively establishes the validity of the mortgage. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1469-1473; Dec. Dig. § 497.*] 4. MORTGAGES (§ 497*) - ACTION TO FORECLOSE-DEFENSES-CONCLUSION BY DECREE. In an action to foreclose a mortgage under statutory provisions providing that a decree may be entered as to amounts then due, to redefaults, the entry of the original decree is main open for enforcement upon subsequent conclusive against defenses subsisting at the time it is entered; but defenses accruing subsequent to such decree may be set up against an application for subsequent execution. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1469-1473; Dec. Dig. § 497.*] Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Ed. E. Hardin, Judge. Action by E. H. Naden against Clarence J. Christopher and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Craven & Greene, for appellants. Hadley, Hadley & Abbott, for respondent. CHADWICK, J. This action was originally brought to foreclose a mortgage for $9,000. The mortgage was made to secure six notes for $1,500 each, payable annually with interest at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum. After default in the first two semiannual interest installments, action was begun to foreclose the mortgage, and upon issue joined a decree of foreclosure was ordered entered. Between the trial in January, 1910, and March, 1910, when the decree was entered, a principal note, in the amount of $1,500, became due, a decree for the amount then due was entered, and appeal was taken to this court. The judgment was affirmed. 62 Wash. 413, 113 Pac. 1116. When the remittitur went down, the appellants paid in to the clerk of the court the sum of $2,764.75, being the full amount then due under the decree as theretofore entered. The original findings of fact provided: "That the Under the statutes relating to actions to principal of the second, third, fourth, fifth, foreclose a mortgage and providing that the and sixth notes, hereinbefore in paragraph court after entering its decree may take sub-9 of these findings set forth, is not yet due [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 1425-1430; Dec. Dig. § 489.*] 2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1073*) - REVIEW HARMLESS ERROR-FORM OF JUDGMENT. |