Wolff

The court having denied a rehearing of this cause, I take the occasion to say that I have never concurred in the affirmance of that part of the decree of the superior court awarding alimony. The amount of alimony awarded is based upon a finding of fact directly opposed to the stipulation of the parties that the answer of defendant was true as to the value of his.property and business. In my opinion, the answer, on a fair construction of its language, makes a sharp issue upon this point.

When these appeals were in Department the following opinion was prepared by Commissioner Vanclief:

Upon further consideration of the appeals in Bank we are satisfied with the foregoing opinion and the conclusions there reached. It may be further said, with respect to the allowance of alimony, that upon the whole case it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in fixing the amount. Of course, it will always be within the power and discretion of the court to modify the allowance of alimony in the future, if just cause appear for such modification.

The judgment and order denying- a new trial are affirmed.

Rehearing denied.

Upon the denial of a rehearing, Beatty, C. J., filed the following opinion on the 13th of June, 1894: