Morrell v. Morrell
New York Supreme Court
In EauiTY. ' This was a bill filed by the husband against his wife, for a divorce, on the ground of adultery. The offence charged against the defendant was denied in her answer, and the adultery of the husband there set up. After the filing of the bill, on the application of the defendant, a gross sum of $250 was allowed her, to defray the expenses of her suit.
Read the full summary
In EauiTY. ' This was a bill filed by the husband against his wife, for a divorce, on the ground of adultery. The offence charged against the defendant was denied in her answer, and the adultery of the husband there set up. After the filing of the bill, on the application of the defendant, a gross sum of $250 was allowed her, to defray the expenses of her suit. And for intermediate alimony, she was allowed the rent of a house in East Broadway, which was let at $740 a year, and which, after deducting taxes, &c. yielded her about $640, She now presented a petition for an additional allowance to…
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
As by our law the husband becomes seised of the property of the wife, there naturally flows therefrom an obligation, on his part, to support and maintain her during coverture, and also, in case of a controversy between them, to afford her the means of asserting her rights against him, or defending herself against his attacks. This obligation must be faithfully enforced, or the wife would be left to the mercy of a profligate or cruel husband. On the other hand, care must be taken in the performance of this duty, lest a dissolute wife may be encouraged, by the hope of a pecuniary allowance, in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wood v. WoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Burr v. BurrNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- Osgood v. OsgoodNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Webb v. PellNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lake v. LakeNevada Supreme Court · 1882
- Kapp v. District Court of the Seventh Judicial DistrictNevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Knapp v. FowlerNew York Supreme Court · 1883