# Duncan v. Duncan

> Washington Supreme Court · August 29, 1946 · 25 Wash. 2d 843

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001182

## Case

- **Full name:** Hazel Bervin Duncan, Respondent, v. James B. W. Duncan, Appellant
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 29, 1946
- **Citations:** 25 Wash. 2d 843; 172 P.2d 210; 1946 Wash. LEXIS 444
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Connelly
- **Judges:** Simpson, Connelly, Steinert, Millard
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001182

## Opinion text

Connelly, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. I think the majority opinion states every reason for granting relief to the appellant. There is no need to review the evidence. That has already been done. A healthy woman earning two hundred forty-five dollars a month, in my opinion, has no right to permanently draw one hundred dollars per month from the four hundred fifty dollars monthly earnings of her former husband. Her salary amply meets her needs and enables her to save money for her old age. I think common equity demands that the one hundred dollars per month alimony be eliminated. These people had been separated for over eight years before this action to modify the decree was commenced. The wife has absolutely no claim upon the husband or his earnings.
*854
I am not concerned with whether the trial judge may be said to have abused his discretion or merely committed error. I think his failure to grant the husband relief was wrong and inequitable and for these reasons dissent.
Mallery, J., concurs with Connelly, J.
October 8, 1946. Petition for rehearing denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4001182. Public record. Not legal advice.