Bucknam v. Bucknam
| Decision Date | 18 May 1900 |
| Parties | BUCKNAM v. BUCKNAM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hamilton & Eaton, for appellant.
F. S Hesseltine, for appellee.
This is a petition filed in the probate court under Pub. St. c. 147 § 33, alleging that the respondent fails, without just cause to furnish suitable support for the petitioner, who is his wife, and asking that the court make an order for her support. The only question before us is whether the court has power to make such an order while the wife is living in the same house with her husband, and is performing some of the duties of a wife. The statute enumerates three classes of cases in which the court may make an order concerning the support of a wife: It may be done 'when a husband fails without just cause, to furnish suitable support for his wife, or has deserted her, or when the wife for justifiable cause is actually living apart from her husband.' There would be no reason for the first class of cases if the power of the court to make an order was intended to be limited to cases in which the husband and wife are living apart from each other. In most, if not all, of the cases which have arisen hitherto, the husband and wife were living apart. Doubtless there will seldom be occasion for an order of the court in behalf of a wife who continues in enjoyment of marital relations with her husband. But to hold that a wife can have no relief so long as she continues to live with her husband, however grossly he neglects to furnish her with needed support, would be to nullify the first clause of the section referred to. The agreed facts under which the order was made show that the parties do not occupy the same room or bed; that they do not eat together, or have any conversation except such as is absolutely necessary, although she cooks the food furnished by him for both. They also show that she is in great need of clothing, medicine, and other things, which he refuses to furnish. The language of the statute indicates an intention that the courts shall have jurisdiction to order relief in such cases. In the last sentence of the opinion in Bigelow v. Bigelow, 120 Mass. 320, which holds that this statute is constitutional notwithstanding that it authorizes an order for the support of a wife and children without securing to the husband a right of trial by jury, there is a plain intimation that this is the meaning of the statute. There is also an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. Schmidt
...113 Md. 395, 400, 77 A. 653,140 Am. St. Rep. 428. It is equally the nature of an order for separate support. Bucknam v. Bucknam, 176 Mass. 229, 57 N. E. 343,49 L. R. A. 735. Since the decision of Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565, it has been the law established under the Fourte......
-
McGuire v. McGuire
...analogous to the facts in the instant case and clearly distinguishable. The plaintiff also relies on the case of Bucknam v. Bucknam, 176 Mass. 229, 57 N.E. 343, 49 L.R.A. 735, and the following cases which we analyze. In this case there was a statute which enumerated three classes of cases ......
-
Department of Revenue v. Jarvenpaa
...that there was no right to jury trial in matters falling within the jurisdiction of courts of chancery); 12 Bucknam v. Bucknam, 176 Mass. 229, 230-231, 57 N.E. 343 (1900) (before 1780, matters of marriage, divorce, alimony, and support of legitimate children were heard by the Governor and C......
-
In re Edmund P. Dole for a Writ Prohibition Against George D. Gear
...& Sep. 962, 965; 1 Bish. M., D. & Sep. § 1399; and when so conferred is liberally construed. Harding v. Harding, 144 Ill. 588;Bucknam v. Bucknam, 176 Mass. 229; Wood v. Wood, 15 S. W. (Ark.) 459. Several of the decisions cited, e. g., all but one of those in Illinois supported the jurisdict......