On Rehearing
In view of the able and vigorous motion of appellant for rehearing, we have with great care again reviewed the entire record in. this case. After such review we believe the appeal was properly disposed of.
The vital question involved is as to whether plaintiff was a creditor of defendants Mr. and Mrs. Perry at the time of their voluntary conveyance to defendant James Arthur Perry on June 3, 1936.
Plaintiff’s claimed debt is evidenced by a judgment rendered on the 14th day of December, 1937. If this judgment inherently shows on its face what items of damage are included therein, it should be conclusive. This judgment was rendered on findings of the jury on the following three special is.sues:
No. 1: “Was the separation between the plaintiff, Mrs. Collier, and her husband brought about, that is produced, through the wrongful acts or persuasion of the defendant, Mrs. Mary Perry?” Answer: “Yes.”
No. 2: “Was such wrongful act or persuasion, if such there was, the inducing and procuring cause of plaintiff’s husband separating from her?” Answer: “Yes.”
No. 3: “What sum of monev, if paid in cash riow, will compensate the plaintiff for the pecuniary loss she has sustained by reason of the separation or her husband from her.” “We find: $10 000.00.”
We think a fair construction of this judgment is that the damages awarded were those occasioned by the actual separation of plaintiff and her husband.
' Under the case as submitted, Betty Collier had no cause of action prior to the separation. No damages were awarded by the judgment save and except those resulting from such separation.
In connection with such special issue No. 3, this charge was given: “In this connection you are instructed that you will take into consideration only the loss plaintiff has sustained through being deprived of the earnings which her husband might have made and would have supplied or contributed to her, but for such separation, and likewise, the value to plaintiff of the society of her husband which she would have enjoyed but for the separation; but you will not take into consideration any embarrassment, humiliation, or mental distress of any character because of separation, nor will 'you consider any element of damages whatsoever save those expressly authorized above.”
In the instant case the trial court found that the separation occurred on the-day of November, 1936. This finding is not attacked.
Plaintiff Betty Collier’s cause of action, as evidenced by the judgment relied upon, did not arise until the - day of November, 1936. The damages for which the award was made all occurred subsequent to that date. What the pleadings were in that case do not appear in this record, and they would perhaps be immaterial herein. What was adjudicated clearly appears from that judgment, construed in the light of the undisputed evidence.
In this case the burden was upon plaintiff to show that she was a creditor on the date of the conveyance.
The sole purpose of admitting evidence as to the relations between Mrs. Perry and Mr. Collier prior to the filing of plaintiff’s peti*298tion was as an aid in the interpretation of the judgment. In respect to the date of the accrual of the damages an award of which is made, nothing but the date of the separation was necessary. Damages were awarded for the separation and the result thereof, and that was all.
It is ordered that the motion be overruled.