Morse v. Morse
Supreme Court of Vermont
Petitition by the wife for her support under the provisions of No.. 33, Acts 1890.' Heard'at the December term, 1892, Start, J., presiding. It was ordered that the petitionee be restrained from interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner, and that he pay her the sum of ten dollars per month until further order. The petitionee excepts. The parties were married in 1855, and lived together until 1883. At that time the petitioner had become blind and deaf.
Read the full summary
Petitition by the wife for her support under the provisions of No.. 33, Acts 1890.' Heard'at the December term, 1892, Start, J., presiding. It was ordered that the petitionee be restrained from interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner, and that he pay her the sum of ten dollars per month until further order. The petitionee excepts. The parties were married in 1855, and lived together until 1883. At that time the petitioner had become blind and deaf. For some seven years before she had been cared for at her husband’s home by one of her daughters, who was nearly the only person…
1Opinion of the CourtRowell, J.
No. 33 of the Acts of 1890 provides that when a husband fails without just cause to furnish suitable support for his wife, or has deserted her, or when the wife, for a justifiable cause, is actually living apart from her husband, the county court may, on the application of either party, make such order as it deems expedient concerning the support of the wife. This statute introduces a new and an important element into the law of domestic relations in this State, and we do not purpose to give it construction beyond what is necessary to decide the case before us; there- - fore we do not…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Town of Milton v. BrusoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1940
- Sheldon & Cushman v. Town of BenningtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895