- 0,99 €
Description de l’éditeur
1 Subsequent to the entry of a divorce decree and death of her former husband, the divorced wife instituted the instant proceeding to revive the divorce action against the executrix of the deceased husbands estate. The manifest object of this proceeding was to maintain the order for child support in continuing force and vitality. The trial court revived the action, substituted the executrix of the deceased husbands estate as a party defendant therein, and ordered that the wife had "a cause of action as stated in Creditors Claim for the projected balance of child support to the minor children * * *, under the terms of the Decree in this Cause, which claim has been rejected by the Executrix * * * which survives against the Estate of Paul S. Whitman * * *." The issue formed in the proceedings below was whether the adjudicated obligation for child support terminated at the fathers death or constituted a proper charge against his estate. The wife asserted that this obligation survived and relied on Smith v. Funk, 141 Okl. 188, 284 P. 638, 640. The executrix argued, inter alia, that the cited case was distinguishable, because here the obligation for child support was not "bottomed" on a prior contract between the parties embodied in the divorce decree.