The opinion
HYDE, Chief Justice
(concurring).
If the defendant had appealed from the judgment in this case awarding divorce and alimony, we would have had jurisdiction of such an appeal under our former decisions. Golding v. Golding, 74 Mo. 123 ; Arnold v. Arnold, Mo.Sup.Banc, 222 S.W. 996 ; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 297 Mo. 447 , 249 S.W. 407 ; Carr v. Carr, Mo.Sup., 232 S.W.2d 488 ; Simon v. Simon, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 560 ; apparently ever since the Golding •case jurisdiction has been taken without •question in gross alimony cases; see also Baer v. Baer, Banc, 364 Mo. 1214 , 274 S.W.2d 298 . If we would have jurisdiction •of an appeal by the defendant seeking to "be relieved of an $8,000 alimony judgment .against him, I can see no good reason why we would not have jurisdiction of an appeal 'by the plaintiff seeking to retain an $8,000 .alimony judgment in her favor. Therefore, my view is that we do have jurisdiction in this case and I concur in the opinion of .HOLMAN, C., herein.