Braecklein v. Braecklein
| Decision Date | 06 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | 85. |
| Citation | 109 A. 546,136 Md. 32 |
| Parties | BRAECKLEIN v. BRAECKLEIN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Suit for divorce by Anna C. Braecklein against Alfred H Braecklein. From an order striking from the final decree granting the divorce and allowing alimony, the provision for alimony, plaintiff appeals. Case remanded, without affirmance or reversal.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and ADKINS, JJ.
Eugene Frederick, of Baltimore (Harry B. Wolf, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Wm Purnell Hall, of Baltimore, for appellee.
On April 17, 1918, the original bill of complaint was filed by the appellant against the appellee, in which are alleged the marriage of the parties; proper conduct of the wife; ill treatment and vicious conduct on the part of the husband; and the joint ownership of certain property the income from which is alleged to be about $135 per month. It is further alleged that by reason of the irreconcilable differences between the parties, for the purpose of preserving said property and to protect the interests of the wife, a receiver ought to be appointed by the court to manage and control the said property during the pendency of the suit, and to collect the rents, income, and profits from said property, and to pay the same into court for the account of the parties to the suit, and that in the meantime the husband ought to be restrained and enjoined from collecting the rents, income, or profits from said property or from otherwise interfering therewith. It is further alleged that the husband is a doctor and is in receipt of a yearly income of about $5,000, and that the wife is wholly destitute of means of supporting herself during the pendency of the suit or of defraying the costs and expenses attending the prosecution of the same.
The prayer of the bill is for permanent alimony, alimony and counsel fees pendente lite, and for other and further relief.
On the same day, it was ordered by the circuit court that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the said property and to collect the income therefrom under the direction of the court pending the suit, and that the husband be restrained and enjoined from collecting said income in the meantime or from interfering therewith, unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before the 27th day of April, 1918.
On May 3d answer of appellee was filed in which he admitted the residence and marriage, denied the allegations of bill as to the proper behavior of appellant and as to his ill treatment of her, and asserting that while he was ill and expected to die she left home without cause on his part taking with her all her effects, and money and property belonging to him, and that by reason of her desertion he had to be removed to the Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he remained for a long time at an expense of about $500, and that while he was in the hospital she entered their former home and removed all his furniture therefom, and has never returned any part thereof. The answer further states that appellee owns together with appellant as tenants by the entireties the property mentioned in the bill, and five ground rents aggregating $240 per annum income, and also the dwelling house in which he and his wife formerly lived and in which he now occupies an office, the rest of the house being unfurnished and not used; and also $2,800 earned and deposited by him in the Central Savings Bank in his name as trustee for himself and wife as joint owners; and that all of the property standing as aforesaid in the names of himself and wife as tenants by the entireties was paid for with his own money, without any contribution on her part; that the total net income from said property is much less than $125 per month; that the alleged irreconcilable differences are differences which did not originate with appellee, and if such exist they were brought about entirely by the wrongful and improper acts of the appellant; that no receiver is required to collect the rents, which rents appellee is advised he has the legal right to collect. The answer denies that he ever earned as much as $5,000 a year, although before he was taken sick he had a good practice; that since that he has not made as much as $50 a month. The answer submits that the allegations of the bill do not present a case within the jurisdiction of the court or warrant the court in granting any of the relief prayed for.
Subsequently, on October 28, 1918, the appellant filed a petition alleging that since filing her bill of complaint she has discovered that her husband has been guilty, since the filing of said bill, of the crime of adultery, and praying that she be permitted to file an amended bill charging her husband with said crime and asking for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, which by an order of court she was permitted to do.
Whereupon appellant filed an amended bill with practically the same allegations as in the original bill, with the additional allegation that her husband has without any just cause or reason abandoned and deserted her, and has been guilty of the crime of adultery; and that she has not lived with him since she discovered said adulteries. In the amended bill the income from the properties owned by the parties as tenants by the entireties is alleged to be about $170.
The amended bill prays for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for permanent alimony, for alimony and counsel fees pendente lite, for the appointment of a receiver, and for further relief.
On this bill the circuit court passed an order that a receiver be appointed and that appellee be restrained and enjoined from collecting the income from said properties, or interfering...
To continue reading
Request your trial