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 349   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

COLES VS. COLES. 34
ble her to carry on the suit, and, therefore, as she already:has it
is her possession, I do not see the propriety of calling upon
him for an additional sum.
She has now in her hands, or at all events, received in
March, 1850, three hundred dollars, which by the marriage;
devolved upon the husband, and which he expresses his wil-
lingness she may employ in conducting this suit. .It appears
to me,, that if the husband had collected this money, as, at law,
he unquestionably was entitled to do, the court would ;ntt have
required him to pay more than that sum to enable her to defray
the expenses of this cause, and as he forebore to do this, and
suffered her to receive and retain it, it would appear to be en-
tirely proper not to coerce him further at this time. The cause,
if an opinion may be formed from the stage it has now reached,
will be brought to a conclusion upon its merits, in a short time,
but, if it should not, and a proper case should be presented
hereafter, it will be in the power of the court to make such
future order with respect to costs, as the exigencies of the case
may require. Nothing more is now intended to be decided,
than that in the present condition of this controvert, and giv-
ing due weight to the time when the application for alimony,
pendente life, and for money to carry on the suit, is made, and
to the probabilities of a speedy and inexpensive litigation from
this period to the end of the suit, there does not appear to be
any necessity for compelling the husband to make advances for
that purpose.
The case of Daiger vs. Daiger, has been referred to by the
counsel for the petitioner, as an authority in support of both
branches of the present application. But it will be found upon
examining the opinion in that ease, that the order was passed
upon the presumption that the wife had no means of living, or
of defraying the expenses of the suit, such being the legal pre-
sumption in the absence of proof to the contrary. There was,
to be sure, some evidence in that case, that when she left her
husband's home, she removed several articles of furniture, bat
there was nothing to show that she had any pecuniary means
of prosecuting the suit, and it appeared that she was entirely de-
31

  		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 349   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