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

TAYMAN VS. TAYMAN. 397
professional services were solicited by the complainant in this
case, and that since the commencement of the same, she, (the
complainant,) had been under the control and subjection of her
husband, the defendant, so that she could make no provision
for compensating the petitioner for his services, and the officers
of this court for their fees. That upon the suits mentioned in
the bill, there had been recovered, and deposited in court,
by order of the Chancellor, to the credit of this cause, the sum
of about $500, which the complainant consented and requested
should be applied in payment of the petitioner's services, and
in payment of other expenses necessarily incurred in prosecuting
the case. The petition, therefore, prays for the passage of an
order authorizing the application of the money aforesaid to the
purposes above mentioned.
At the hearing of this petition, after answer thereto by the
defendant, the following opinion was delivered on the 16th of
January, 1851 :]
THE CHANCELLOR:
There can be no doubt of the power of this court, pending a
bill for a divorce by a wife, to compel the husband to pay
her a reasonable sum as alimony, and also, to furnish her with
the means of defraying the expenses of the suit. The case
of Ricketts vs. Ricketts, 4 Gill, 105, and several cases hereto-
fore decided by this court, and especially the case of Daiger
vs. Daiger, recently decided, are conclusive upon the question.
And it must also be considered as settled, that upon an appli-
cation by the wife, for temporary alimony, and for money to
carry on the suit, the merits will not be looked into, the allow-
ance being made almost, if not entirely, as a matter of course.
Such was the conclusion to which I came in the case of Daiger
vs. Daiger, after an examination of numerous cases in this
country and in England.
But, in all these cases, it will be found, the application was
made by the wife who is living apart from her husband, and
who is without the means of carrying on the suit. If she be
living with her husband, an allowance of alimony, pendents life,
35

  		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 397   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  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives