Mumford v. Murray
New York Court of Chancery
Caroline M. Dunscomb, one of the defendants in the last suit, and wife of one of the complainants in the first suit, who is also a defendant in the last cause, presented her petition setting forth that a share of the fund in the hands of the receiver belonged to her as one of the children of J. P. Mumford deceased.
Read the full summary
Caroline M. Dunscomb, one of the defendants in the last suit, and wife of one of the complainants in the first suit, who is also a defendant in the last cause, presented her petition setting forth that a share of the fund in the hands of the receiver belonged to her as one of the children of J. P. Mumford deceased. She further stated that her husband was insolvent, and that his property had been attached under the act for relief against absconding debtors, and trustees had been appointed; that she was left together with six infant children wholly unprovided for. And she prayed that the…
1Opinion of the Court
*621The Chancellor :—The wife is entitled to a reasonable amount out of the property for her support. That amount must also include the necessary provision for her children. *In Steinmitz v. Halthen, (1 Glyn. & Jam. 64,) it was holden that the wife’s equity to a support out of her separate property, for herself and children, attached the moment a bill was filed in respect to it; so that if she died before payment, her children were entitled to a support out of it, to the exclusion of the assignees of the husband, who had been declared a bankrupt.
I see no necessity for proceeding by bill in this…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ellis v. Boston, Hartford & Erie RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Brown v. . WadsworthNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Storm v. WaddellNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Bell v. Bell ex rel. BuggSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Storm v. WaddellNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.