
    Wharton v. Wharton.
    1. Divorce and Alimony: injunction: attachment. In an action for divorce and alimony the plaintiff, upon a proper showing, is entitled toan injunction restrainingthe defendant from disposing of his property to defeat the claim for alimony. The remedy by attachment given by statute, section 2227, Code, is cumulative only, and not exclusive.
    
      Appeal from Jasper District Court.
    
    Thursday, March 23.
    The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant for divorce and for alimony. Afterwards she filed her petition for an injunction, restraining the defendant from disposingof his real estate and personal property, until tlie final disposition of the action for divorce and alimony. The petition described the property, the sale of which was sought to be enjoined. A temporary injunction was granted. Afterwards a motion was made to dissolve the injunction. Upon the hearing of the motion all of the property was released from the operation and restraint of the writ, excepting the land, the liorses, farming implements, and milch cows, and the motion to dissolve was overruled. Erom this ruling the defendant appeals.
    
      Norris & Dunn and H. S. Winslow, for appellant.
    
      Patterson & Harrah, for appellee.
   Rothrock, J.

The question presented by counsel is whether the plaintiff in an action for divorce and alimony is entitled, upon a proper showing, to an injunction restrain-log the disposition of property by the defendant, It is conceded that such a proceeding may properly be had under section 3386 and 3388 of the Code, unless the remedy by attachment, provided in proceedings for divorce, by section 2227, is exclusive. It is contended that it is an exclusive remedy, and not merely cumulative. We think it is quite clear that it is cumulative only, and that notwithstanding an attachment is now allowed, the remedy by injunction may still be pursued.

Section 2227 contains nothing which in the least impairs the right to the equitable remedy by injunction. It provides an additional remedy which the party may pursue at his option if he deem it expedient. The mere fact that another remedy is provided, which in some instances may be more effective, does not destroy the remedy already existing.

Affirmed.  