Call v. Call

Decision Date31 May 1876
Citation65 Me. 407
PartiesEMMA G. CALL, libelant, v. MOSES CALL.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

1875.

ON EXCEPTIONS.

LIBEL for divorce by the wife, containing a prayer for alimony and for provision for the support of Elleu C. Call a minor child of the parties. A divorce a vinculo was decreed in favor of the libelant, and the custody of the child awarded to her, at the October term, 1874.

Thereafterwards upon hearing of libelant's motion for alimony and provision for the child, the libelee's counsel contended that such provision for the child should be a periodical allowance made to continue so long as the mother should have the care of her and until the court might otherwise order; but the court made the following order: " Libelee to pay five thousand dollars for the support of his minor child, Ellen C Call."

The court also ordered that the libelee pay libelant nine thousand dollars instead of alimony; and further ordered that separate executions issue for these sums respectively.

To the foregoing orders and decrees and to each of them, the libelee excepted.

The foregoing bill of exceptions having been allowed, upon motion of libelant's counsel, the court ordered " that the libelee pay the sum of $450 for the use of the libelant, into the clerk's office, one-half in thirty days, and one-half in sixty days, for the support of libelant and child till next term; and if not paid in thirty days after due executions to issue."

Whereupon libelee's counsel prayed the court to add a provision that the said sum, when paid, should be allowed in diminution of the sum to be paid by the previous order, or other provision of like effect.

But the court denied the motion and to this denial the libelee also excepted.

At the April term, 1875, the court ordered that (a similar sum) $450 be paid by libelee into the clerk's office, one-half in ten days and one-half in sixty days from final adjournment, for support of libelant and child until next term; and in default thereof executions to issue. To this order and decree the libelee excepted.

The libelee moved that the court decree that said allowance of $450 be deducted from the sum that may be finally allowed and decreed said libelant in lieu of alimony. The court refused so to order. To said orders and refusal the libelee excepted.

W Hubbard, for the libelee.

A. P. Gould & J. E. Moore, for the libelant.

WALTON J.

This is a divorce suit. It is before the law court on two separate bills of exceptions. The first was taken at the October term 1874, and the other at the April term, 1875. Both relate to allowances made to the wife for the support of herself and a minor child, the care and custody of which were decreed to her. The first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Hiss v. Hiss.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 1 Febrero 1949
    ...not lie. In Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414, 419, 39 So. 237, the right to appeal was denied without discussion in the opinion; in Call v. Call, 65 Me. 407, 409, the decision was placed upon the ground that the delay caused by the appeal might leave the wife without means of livelihood and so ......
  • In re Edmund P. Dole for a Writ Prohibition Against George D. Gear
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1903
    ...is a question upon which there is some difference of opinion. The following cases are cited as holding that it is not appealable: Call v. Call, 65 Me. 407; Aspinwall v. Aspinwall, 25 N. W. (Neb.) 623; Lapham v. Lapham, 40 Mich. 527; Cooper v. Mayhew, Id. 528;Webber v. Webber, 79 N. C. 572;G......
  • Dole v. Gear
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1903
    ...legal rights" conferred on the wronged wife by law. Temporary support is allowable to meet the " immediate necessities of the wife" (Call v. Call, 65 Me. 407). It seems me that these rights given the wife are equally sacred and entitled to the protection of the courts with the property righ......
  • Hildebrand v. Hildebrand
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 23 Diciembre 1913
    ...S.W. 579; McConnell v. McConnell, 98 Ark. 193, 136 S.W. 931, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1094; Huffman v. Huffman (Ind. App.) 101 N.E. 400; Call v. Call, 65 Me. 407; Winkler v. Winkler (Miss.) 61 So. 1; Wyrick v. Wyrick, 88 Neb. 9, 128 N.W. 662; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 143 N.Y. 235, 38 N.E. 288; Blai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT