Opinion Per *654Curiam.
Judge below, Henry M. Shepard.
Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Padbook & Aldis;
for appellee, Mr. Alfred Moore and Messrs. Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker.
Opinion filed April 28, 1886.
No. 32—2302.
In February, 1881, appellant obtained a decree of divorce from appellee, and by it was awarded the custody of their three sons, and alimony for the support of herself and said three sons fixed at the sutn of seventy-five dollars per month, Both p irties married again, appellant beconrng the wife of aman whom the record shows was of ample means. Soon after his marriage to his present wife appellee filed his petition to ojien the former decree as to the custody of the children. Ajipellant resisted the apjilication but the court opened the decree and heard evidence at considerable length. The court permitted the two elder sons to elect with which jiarent they would remain, and they se’ected their mother. At the time of this hearing the oldest son was upward of seventeen years of age and had been employed as a clerk. The second son was fifteen years old, and the youngest eleven and something over. The court, by its final order in the matter of appellee’s petition, left the custody of the sons with appellant but reduced the alimony to twenty dollars per month, which sum apjiellee was ordered to pay for the sujiport and education of the youngest boy. This order appellant assigns for error, alleging that the order should have been for a larger amount, and should have made provision for the support of the second son-This court can not say that the judgment arrived at by the chancellor ought to be different.
Affirmed.
Opinion Per *654Curiam.
Judge below, Henry M. Shepard.
Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Padbook & Aldis;
for appellee, Mr. Alfred Moore and Messrs. Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker.
Opinion filed April 28, 1886.