Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1996 · …sufficiently detailed and explicit findings at p. 548 ✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1991 · …support needs can be taken care of by awarding her a greater than 50 share of the net proceeds from the sale of the real property and marital residence. ⚠ not in text
300 citation events (82 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Brown (alaska, 1997-10-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Brown v. Brown
Alaska · 1997 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
as the case stands now we would have to assume the role of the trial court, weigh the evidence, draw reasonable inferences, make findings and determine the result. that is not our function or obligation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jordan Farkas v. Caitlin Burr
Alaska · 2026 · confidence medium
Explicit consideration of AS 25.24.150(c)(7) was required because it was “relevant in light of the evidence presented.”18 13 See AS 25.24.150(c)(7) (evidence of domestic violence, child abuse, or child neglect in proposed custodial household or history of violence between the parents); AS 25.24.150(d) (requiring court to consider only facts directly affecting child’s well-being), (g) (rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to parent with history of domestic violence against other parent), and (h) (allowing presumption to be rebutted by completion of batterers intervention progra…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Barton D. v. Catalina D
Alaska · 2023 · confidence medium
S-17258/17268, 2020 WL 2896574 , at *3-4 (Alaska June 3, 2020) (vacating long-term domestic violence protective order for insufficient factual findings when court’s only written or oral findings consisted of checking two boxes on standard domestic violence protective order form). 12 420 P.3d at 1242 . 13 Sarah D., 352 P.3d at 429 (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)); see also Alaska R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trevor Paul Fairbanks v. Cara Eileen Fox, f/k/a Cara Fox Fairbanks
Alaska · 2022 · confidence medium
As Trevor points out, there is no explanation of “how the construction could have been funded if it was not from Trevor’s premarital money.”17 15 Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962); see also Dundas v. Dundas, 362 P.3d 468, 473 (Alaska 2015) (“Factual findings supporting marital property distribution ‘must be sufficient to indicate a factual basis for the conclusion reached.’ ” (quoting Pfeil v. Lock, 311 P.3d 649, 653 (Alaska 2013)). 16 On appeal Cara argues she “disputed [the claim Trevor spent all his savings on the home] throughout trial” and “consist…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer L. v. Geoffrey G.
Alaska · 2021 · confidence medium
When some of these allegations were made and supported in the domestic violence protective order proceeding, the same judge who presided over the custody case heard 18 Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)). 19 Some crimes of domestic violence, such as criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and harassment, have no physical injury or fear element.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jason B. v. Heather B.
Alaska · 2020 · confidence medium
The court’s oral findings were similarly terse: “I find that the crime that [was] alleged, the crime of assault in the fourth degree, where [Jason] recklessly placed [Heather] in fear of imminent physical injury by [his] words or conduct, I find that that standard has been met.” Because neither its written order nor its oral findings provide any indication of the evidence on which they were based, we are unable to review either the 8 Solomon v. Solomon, 420 P.3d 1234, 1242 (Alaska 2018) (quoting Price, 128 P.3d at 731 ). 9 Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 10 Solomon, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Timothy W. v. Julia M.
Alaska · 2017 · confidence medium
Sarah D. v. John D., 352 P.3d 419, 429 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)) (citing Alaska R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy W. v. Julia M.
Alaska · 2017 · confidence medium
The presumption against unsupervised visitation contained in AS 25.24.150(j) applies when “a parent . . . has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner.”73 Because we affirm the trial court’s findings that Jackie and Timothy were “household members” under AS 18.66.990(5) and that Timothy committed two counts of criminal trespass and one count of coercion against Jackie, Timothy had “a history of perpetrating domestic violence” for committing “more than one incident of domestic violence.”74 The dispositive quest…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timothy W. v. Julia M.
Alaska · 2017 · confidence medium
The presumption against supervised visitation contained in AS 25.24.150(j) applies when “a parent . . . has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner.”73 Because we affirm the trial court’s findings that Jackie and Timothy were “household members” under AS 18.66.990(5) and that Timothy committed two counts of criminal trespass and one count of coercion against Jackie, Timothy had “a history of perpetrating domestic violence” for committing “more than one incident of domestic violence.”74 The dispositive questio…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sarah D. v. John D.
Alaska · 2015 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962); see also Alaska R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sandberg v. Sandberg
Alaska · 2014 · confidence medium
As above, if the superior court grants Brianna Rule 60(b) relief and reinstates its prior property division, the court must also address the relative rental value 39 See, e.g., Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (stating that the trial court “has a duty by sufficiently detailed and explicit findings to give this court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision, and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision.” (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 40 Rodr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heustess v. Kelley-Heustess (2×)
Alaska · 2011 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962) (quoting Irish v. United States, 225 F.2d 3, 8 (9th Cir.1955)); see also McCoy v. McCoy, 926 P.2d 460, 463-64 (Alaska 1996). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hooper v. Hooper (2×)
Alaska · 2008 · confidence medium
Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (stating that court must make fact findings that are "sufficiently specific" to indicate basis for property division) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962) (footnote omitted)). 5 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fletcher v. Trademark Construction, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska · 2003 · confidence medium
Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634, 638 (Alaska 2001) (quoting In re Estate of Kottke, 6 P.3d 243, 245 (Alaska 2000) (quoting Mathis v. Meyeres, 574 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska 1978))). 6 . 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 7 . 649 P.2d 710, 711 (Alaska 1982). 8 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manelick v. Manelick
Alaska · 2002 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962) (quoting Irish v. United States, 225 F.2d 3, 8 (9th Cir.1955]); see also Alaska R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berry v. Berry (2×)
Alaska · 1999 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dunn v. Dunn
Alaska · 1998 · confidence medium
See AS 25.24.160(4); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gallant v. Gallant
Alaska · 1994 · confidence medium
Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cox v. Cox
Alaska · 1994 · confidence medium
Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (citing Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Money v. Money
Alaska · 1993 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Johnson
Alaska · 1992 · confidence medium
The trial court thus has a duty “by sufficiently detailed and explicit findings ‘to give [this] court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision, and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision.’ ” Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDaniel v. McDaniel
Alaska · 1992 · confidence medium
Lewis v. Lewis, 785 P.2d 550, 552 (Alaska 1990); Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chotiner v. Chotiner (2×)
Alaska · 1992 · confidence medium
In this as in all cases, we ask for “ ‘sufficiently detailed and explicit findings to give [this] court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision.’ ” Lewis, 785 P.2d at 552 (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962)). 4.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doyle v. Doyle (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska · 1991 · confidence medium
Lewis v. Lewis, 785 P.2d 550, 552 (Alaska 1990); Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Lewis
Alaska · 1990 · confidence medium
Lang v. Lang, 741 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962)). 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sloan v. Jefferson
Alaska · 1988 · confidence medium
Wigger v. Olson, 533 P.2d 6, 7 (Alaska 1975) (quoting Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rhodes v. Rhodes
Alaska · 1988 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dixon v. Dixon (2×) also: Cited "see"
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Given the myriad considerations the trial court must balance and the broad discretion generally exercised by the trial court in cases such as these, see, e.g., Hunt v. Hunt, 698 P.2d 1168, 1171 (Alaska 1985); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962), the power to award or withhold interest on a judgment should prove a useful tool in effecting a just resolution of a divorcing couple’s financial affairs.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bakke v. State
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962) (quoting Irish v. United States, 225 F.2d 3, 8 (9th Cir.1955)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lang v. Lang (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Elijah asks this court to overturn the property division because the superior court failed to consider factors relevant to the division according to our decision in Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1962), and failed to articulate sufficiently specific factual findings to indicate the basis for the division. 4 In Merrill , we indicated our need in reviewing the justness of a property division “to be informed by the trial court what it found to be the ultimate facts upon which it based its conclusion that the property should be divided as it has decreed.” 368 P.2d at 547-48 (footnote…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nelson v. Nelson
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bousquet v. Bousquet
Alaska · 1987 · confidence medium
Hunt v. Hunt, 698 P.2d 1168, 1170 (Alaska 1985); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) P.C. v. State
Alaska · 1986 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re DC
Alaska · 1986 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Winn v. Mannhalter
Alaska · 1985 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt v. Hunt (2×)
Alaska · 1985 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Headlough v. Headlough
Alaska · 1982 · confidence medium
Urban Development Company v. Dekreon, 526 P.2d 325, 328 (Alaska 1974); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosson v. Rosson (2×)
Alaska · 1981 · confidence medium
It “gives assurance that he has exercised care in ascertaining the facts, and has employed both skill and judgment in reducing his thoughts on contested matters to precise and pertinent findings. ...” Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Curran v. Hastreiter
Alaska · 1978 · confidence medium
Wigger v. Olson, 533 P.2d 6, 7-8 (Alaska 1975); Graham v. Rockman, 504 P.2d 1351, 1355 (Alaska 1972); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 20 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Allen (2×)
Alaska · 1976 · confidence medium
See Mullaly v. Mullaly, 518 P.2d 1395, 1398 (Alaska 1974); Moore v. Moore, 499 P.2d 300, 304 (Alaska 1972); Ross v. Ross, 496 P.2d 662, 663 (Alaska 1972); Vanover v. Vanover, 496 P.2d 644, 645 (Alaska 1972); Sheridan v. Sheridan, 466 P.2d 821, 822 (Alaska 1970); Houger v. Houger, 449 P.2d 766, 771 (Alaska 1969); Stroecker v. Stroecker, 428 P.2d 384, 386 (Alaska 1967); Groff v. Groff, 408 P.2d 998, 1000, 1001 (Alaska 1965); McSmith v. McSmith, 387 P.2d 454, 455 (Alaska 1963); Crume v. Crume, 378 P.2d 183, 186 (Alaska 1963); Rhodes v. Rhodes, 370 P.2d 902, 905 (Alaska 1962); Merrill v. Merrill, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burrell v. Burrell
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
Then, understanding that there are substantial problems in having these parties own property together or having mutual in *4 terest, joint interest in the same property because of litigation and the fact that they aren’t any more likely to agree up-pon what to do with their property in the future than they have been unable to agree upon anything during the last nine months, I am going to do the following: (emphasis added) The superior court then proceeded to detail the property division. 4 In Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547-48 (Alaska 1962), this court alluded to criteria which should …
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wigger v. Olson (4×) also: Cited "see"
Alaska · 1975 · confidence medium
If an opinion or memorandum of decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein. 2 . 504 P.2d 1351, 1355 (Alaska 1972). 3 . 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 4 . 504 P.2d at 1355 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mullaly v. Mullaly
Alaska · 1974 · confidence medium
The standard used by this court in assessing the fairness of a property division is set forth in Merrill v. Merrill (# 1), 368 P.2d 546, 547-548, n. 4 (Alaska 1962): “It has been held that the principal factors to be considered by the trial court in determining the question of alimony or division of property as between the parties are the respective ages of the parties; their earning ability; the duration and conduct of each during the marriage; their station in life; the circumstances and necessities of each; their health and physical condition; their financial circumstances, including the …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Graham v. Rockman
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
Co., 247 F.Supp. 944 (D.C.Alaska 1965); Spenard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Wright, 370 P.2d 519 (Alaska 1962). 8 . 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. Moore
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962) (footnote omitted). 3 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Abbott
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
See Bohm v. State, 453 P.2d 410, 411 (Alaska 1969) ; Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vanover v. Vanover
Alaska · 1972 · confidence medium
We have employed the clearly unjust standard in Sheridan v. Sheridan, 466 P.2d 821, 822 (Alaska 1970); Houger v. Houger, 449 P.2d 766, 771 (Alaska 1969); Groff v. Groff, 408 P.2d 998, 1000 (Alaska 1965); McSmith v. McSmith, 387 P.2d 454, 455 (Alaska 1963); Rhodes v. Rhodes, 370 P.2d 902, 905 (Alaska 1962); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 547 (Alaska 1962). 2 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) RLR v. State
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). 105 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fairbanks Builders, Inc. v. Morton DeLima, Inc. (2×)
Alaska · 1971 · confidence medium
Hamilton v. Lotto, 391 P.2d 948, 949 (Alaska 1964) ; Spenard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Wright, 370 P.2d 519, 525-526 (Alaska 1962); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962); Dickerson v. Geiermann, 368 P.2d 217, 219 (Alaska 1962). 9 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Knox v. Pickles
Alaska · 1969 · confidence medium
Cited were Patrick v. Sedwick, 413 P.2d 169, 174-176 (Alaska 1966) ; Hamilton v. Lotto, 391 P.2d 948, 949 (Alaska 1964) ; Dickerson v. Geiermann, 368 P.2d 217, 219 (Alaska 1962); Spenard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Wright Const. Co., 370 P.2d 519, 525, 526 (Alaska 1962); Merrill v. Merrill, 368 P.2d 546, 548 (Alaska 1962). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles C. MERRILL, Appellant,
v.
Margaret F. MERRILL, Appellee
77.
Alaska Supreme Court.
Feb 6, 1962.
368 P.2d 546
1962 Alas. LEXIS 140
Arthur D. Talbot, Anchorage, for appellant., Neil S. Mackay, Anchorage, for appellee.
Nesbett, Dimond, Arend.
Cited by 196 opinions  |  Published
AREND, Justice.

This is a divorce action in which the trial court granted the plaintiff wife a divorce from the defendant, Charles C. Merrill, and awarded her the sum of $35,000, apparently in lieu of any right or interest in certain property of the parties. The defendant, as the appellant here, contends that the award was excessive and unjust and states that this presents the only issue on which he seeks review.

About two months after it tried the case, the cou'rt made and filed its findings of fact. These were to the effect that the parties married in 1952; that no issue had been born of the marriage; that certain property rights of the parties needed to be adjudicated; and that it became impossible for the parties to continue to live together as husband and wife because of an incompatibility of temperament between them. [1] On the basis of those findings, the court then made its conclusions of law that the plaintiff should “execute a quitclaim deed to the property owned by the parties”; and that the defendant husband should execute a deed of trust to the property of the parties, in the amount of $35,000, to a designated trustee, with the husband as trustor and the wife as beneficiary. The husband was also required to execute a promissory note for $35,000, along with the deed of trust, the note to be repaid at the monthly rate of $175, without interest. [2] A decree was entered accordingly and this appeal followed.

In his brief on appeal the defendant states that he is unable to say precisely upon what basis the court arrived at the $35,000 figure, as the findings of fact are silent on the subject. We have the same complaint to make.

Section 56-5-13 A.C.L.A.1949 empowers the trial court to provide, inter alia, in the divorce decree

“For the division between the parties of their joint property, or the separate property of each, in such manner as may be just, and without regard as to which of the parties is the owner of such property * * (Emphasis supplied.)

Under the wording of this statute, the division of property between the parties in a divorce action rests in the discretion of the trial judge, and we should not disturb such division unless clearly unjust. [3] When called upon, as here, to review the justness of the division of property in a divorce action, we need to be informed by the trial court what it found to be the ultimate facts [4] upon which it based its conclusion[*548] that the property should be divided as it has decreed.

To take care of just such a situation as we have before us here, Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure was promulgated to provide that “in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” [5] The rule is mandatory and must be reasonably complied with. [6]

As one well recognized authority points out, findings of fact under Rule 52(a) have a threefold purpose: “as an aid in the trial judge’s process of adjudication; for the purposes of res judicata and estoppel by judgment; and as an aid to the appellate court on review.” 7 To particularize, the requirement that the trial judge file findings of fact gives assurance that he has exercised care in ascertaining the facts, and has employed both skill and judgment in reducing his thoughts on contested matters to precise and pertinent findings while the evidence is still fresh in his mind. [8] Further, under Rule 52(a), it is the duty of the trial court by sufficiently detailed and explicit findings “to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the trial court’s decision, and to enable it to determine the ground on which the trial court reached its decision.” [9]

From our study of the briefs and record we do not reach the ready conclusion of the trial court that the $35,000 award to the appellee was justified under the facts. It is quite possible that adequate findings would remove our doubts in this respect. As the case stands now we would have to assume the role of the trial court, weigh the evidence, draw reasonable inferences, make findings and determine the result. That is not our function or obligation. Therefore, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff with respect to the $35,000 awarded to her is vacated and the cause remanded to the superior court for the purpose of making appropriate findings of fact in the light of this opinion. [10] If this cannot be done, then the superior court shall, in lieu of making further findings of fact, grant a new trial.

So ordered.

1

. There is nothing in the findings to indicate that either party was to blame for the incompatibiity of temperament.

2

. The conclusions of law do not indicate whether the deed of trust was to serve as security for the note, nor do they designate the payee of the note.

3

. See Crouch v. Crouch, 63 Cal.App.2d 747, 147 P.2d 678, 682 (1944); Harris v. Harris, 169 Kan. 339, 219 P.2d 454 (1950); Kirsch v. Kirsch, 192 Wash. 156, 73 P.2d 356 (1937).

4

. It has been held that the principal factors to be considered by the trial court[*548] in determining the question of alimony or division of property as between the parties are the respective ages of the parties; their earning ability; the duration and conduct of each during the marriage;, their station in life; the circumstances and necessities of each; their health and physical condition; their financial circumstances, including the time and manner of acquisition of the property in question, its value at the time and its income producing capacity if any. Ruff v. Ruff, 78 N.D. 775, 52 N.W.2d 107, 111 (1952); Kressly v. Kressly, 77 S.D. 143, 87 N.W.2d 601, 603-604 (1958); 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, § 14.135 (2d ed. 1945).

5

.An identical provision in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. has been operative in the federal district courts since 1938. The federal rules were extended to the Territory of Alaska in 1946 and remained with us until they were superseded by our own Rules of Civil Procedure in 1959 under statehood.

6

. Maher v. Hendrickson, 188 F.2d 700 (7th Cir. 1951).

7

. 5 Moore, Federal Practice para. 52.06 [1], at 2653 (2d ed. 1951).

8

. United States v. Forness, 125 F.2d 928, 942-943 (2d Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 316 U.S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 1293, 86 L.Ed. 1764 (1942).

9

. Irish v. United States, 225 F.2d 3, 8 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. Horsfall, 270 F.2d 107 (10th Cir. 1959).

10

. We do not mean to intimate that findings must be made on all of the matters enumerated in the fourth note to this opinion or that no others need be made. We hold only that the findings should be sufficient to indicate the factual basis for the ultimate conclusion. See Kelley v. Everglades Drainage Dist., 319 U.S. 415, 422, 63 S.Ct. 1141, 87 L.Ed. 1485, 1489 (1943).