Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Mich. 285

Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1859

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1859-05-07

The bill was filed for a divorce on the ground of adultery, ■ -alleged to have been committed by the wife. The answer denied the charge under oath. On the hearing, upon proofs, in ‘the court below, a decree was made in accordance with the prayer of the bill, from which defendant appealed. Temporary ■alimony had been granted, which ceased on entry of decree.

Relies on McGee v. McGee · Stanford v. Stanford · Williams v. Williams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-05-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1928

16 state decisions — followed in 13 states

6018591860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Manning J.:

¶1The power to allow temporary alimony pending proceed-, ings for a divorce, and to compel the husband to furnish the. Wife with pecuniary means to defend or prosecute the suit on her behalf, is incident to divorce cases. It is necessary to the-ends of'justice. "Without this power in the Court, the wife-that should have no separate property of her own, would be. without the requisite means of prosecuting or defending the-, suit, and of supporting herself in the mean time. The statute-relative to divorces says: '“The Court may, in its discretion, require the husband to pay any sum necessary to enable the-Wife to carry on or, defend the suit during its pendency,” but makes no mention of temporary alimony. So far as the stat-. ute goes, it is only confirmatory of the common law, which had been acted upon by our courts before we had any statu-, tory provisions on the subject. — Story v. Story, Walk. Ch. 421.*

¶2The decree below having been adverse to the wife is not, we think, of itself a sufficient ground for denying the motion. The certificate of two counsel shows the appeal was taken in good faith. We think this sufficient to warrant us in exercising-the discretion with which we are vested.

The other Justices concurred.

¶3Motion granted.

¶4*287On a subsequent day, on affidavits showing that defendant had been guilty of repeated acts of adultery pending this appeal, Maynard moved for an order vacating the allowance of alimony above made.

¶5The counsel for defendant, now declining any further to appear in the case, the Court, on looking over the affidavits, granted the motion.

¶6 See also McGee v. McGee, 10 Ga. 477; Patterson v. Patterson, 1 Halst. Ch. 389; Amos v. Amos, 3 Green Ch. 171; Mix v. Mix, 1 Johns, Ch. 108; and North v. North, 1 Earb. Ch. 241.

¶7 The wife is entitled to temporary alK monyup to final decree, notwithstanding a jury, upon a feigned issue, has given a vor-.. diet of adultery against her. — Stanford v. Stanford, 1 Edw. Ch. 317. And see, Williams v. Williams 3 Barb. Ch. 628.

/6/mich/285 · .json · Public domain