clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 338   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

338 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY-
mony and money to carry on the suit, was allowed the wife,
though the husband put in a plea, supported by affidavits de-
nying the marriage. In the case of Stanford vs. Stanford,
ibid., 317, the wife was allowed temporary alimony, up to
the final decree, notwithstanding a jury, upon a feigned issue,
had found a verdict of adultery against her. The cases of
Roberfson vs. Robertson, and Murray vs. Murray, reported in
the same book, 361 and 382, furnish further, and strong evi-
dence of the inflexibility of the rule, that under all circumstances,
and entirely irrespective of the merits, the marriage being ad-
mitted or proved, the wife will be allowed temporary alimony,
and money to prosecute or defend the suit, when separated
from her husband, unless she has an income of her own, suffi-
cient for those purposes.
The case of Hammond vs. Hammond, 1 Clarke, 151, in
which most of the previous decisions in New York, were con-
sidered, is strong confirmation of the rule, and it will be found,
upon examination of the cases in the English ecclesiastical
courts, that the same principle prevails there. Bird vs. Bird, 5
Eng. Eccl. Rep., 366, and the note to the case, show how firmly
the rule is adhered to, so far as relates to the liability of the
husband to maintain his wife, and defray the expenses of the
suit, during its progress, though at its termination, in a case of
gross fraud, the wife may be condemned in costs, and Fitz-
gerald vs. Fitzgerald, ibid., 472, is a further confirmation of the
rule.
It appears, by some of the cases in New York, that where
the wife is the defendant, in a suit for a divorce, brought by
the husband, upon the charge of adultery, she will not be al-
lowed alimony pending the litigation, and to enable her to de-
fend the suit, unless, in her petition, she denies, on oath, the
charge of adultery, or show a valid defence, by reason of con-
donation, or otherwise; but if she does make such denial, or
otherwise present a valid defence, the court will not undertake
to investigate or decide the merits, and will make the allowance.
Wood vs. Wood, 2 Paige, 108; Osgood vs. Osgood, ib., 621.
In this case, the bill was filed by the wife, and she alleges,,

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 338   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives