17 D.C. 502 (D.C.D.C. 1888), 10,836, Bradstreet v. Bradstreet

Docket Nº:In Equity. 10,836.
Citation:17 D.C. 502
Opinion Judge:MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BINGHAM:
Party Name:SARAH BRADSTREET v. GEORGE P. BRADSTREET.
Attorney:MESSRS. WALTER V. R. BERRY and HENRY WISE GARNETT, for complainant. MR. F. W. HACKETT, for defendant.
Case Date:July 02, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of District of Columbia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 502

17 D.C. 502 (D.C.D.C. 1888)

SARAH BRADSTREET

v.

GEORGE P. BRADSTREET.

In Equity. No. 10,836.

Supreme Court, District of Columbia.

July 2, 1888

While in a suit for divorce brought by the wife the Court may allow alimony pendente lite , even when there is a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court, yet under special circumstances it will refuse such allowance until the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit has been first determined. Thus, in this case, it appearing that the wife's relatives had stimulated the bringing of the suit, and had promised to take care of her and to provide the means necessary for its prosecution, the Court, under the circumstances, refuses to grant such alimony until the plea to the jurisdiction has first been disposed of.

MOTION for alimony pendente lite .

THE CASE is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

MESSRS. WALTER V. R. BERRY and HENRY WISE GARNETT, for complainant.

MR. F. W. HACKETT, for defendant.

OPINION

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BINGHAM:

This is is a suit brought by the wife for divorce on the ground of alleged cruelty. There are a number of pleas filed by the defendant raising the question of jurisdiction of this Court to hear the cause on the ground of the nonresidence of each of the parties, complainant and defendant, in this District. Personal service has been made upon the defendant, and he has appeared, but challenges the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject-matter of the action. Upon the issue created by the pleas a large amount of testimony has been taken, and the case has been certified to this Court for hearing in the first instance. Pending that hearing the complainant moves for the allowance of temporary alimony.

Upon consideration of the circumstances brought to our attention bearing upon this motion, we are of the opinion that it should be denied. While it is true that under all ordinary circumstances the wife bringing an action for divorce ought to be allowed alimony for her support, and to enable her to prosecute her action, yet it is not always so. There is pretty...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP