J. S. Eaton v. Henrietta V. Davis

Summary

The court held that future, unaccrued alimony payments fixed by a final divorce decree are not vested property rights, so the legislature could constitutionally authorize courts to modify or terminate them based on changed circumstances. Because the 1938 amendment expressly applied to alimony previously awarded and Eaton alleged facts supporting a possible reduction, the demurrer was improperly sustained and the case was remanded for a hearing. Holt, J., dissenting, would have treated the decree as creating a vested property interest and an inviolably final adjudication.