Cunningham v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 01 August 1899 |
| Citation | 44 A. 41,72 Conn. 157 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CUNNINGHAM v. CUNNINGHAM. |
Appeal from superior court, New London county; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.
Action by Annie C. Cunningham against John H. Cunningham. This was a suit by a married woman to compel her husband, who had deserted her, to provide her and their minor child with suitable support, tried upon the defendant's demurrer to the substituted complaint. The court sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. Reversed.
The original complaint alleged a desertion five months after marriage, and a neglect to provide the plaintiff with the necessaries of life, though the defendant is worth $50,000. The claims for relief were for $20,000 damages, and, by way of equitable relief, an order compelling him to make due provision for her support. The writ was one of attachment. An attachment was made, and a bond for $9,200 substituted. Afterwards a substituted complaint was filed, containing new matter, and with these additional allegations: A child has been born since the desertion. The defendant has given notice by newspaper advertisement warning all persons not to trust the plaintiff. She has no means or credit, and is in poor health, ana unable to support herself and her child. The defendant has an income of $5,000 a year. Since she brought the suit he has conveyed away all his property to avoid legal process, and prevent it from being applied to the support of his wife or child, and with like purpose has left the state for parts unknown. The claims were for equitable relief, as follows: (1) That a provision for her maintenance, adequate for her support and that of the child, be made, of not less than a third of his property; (2) that such fund be placed in trust for said purpose; and (3) for any other relief that might seem proper. To this substituted complaint the defendant demurred on the ground that, it not being one for a divorce with alimony, no cause of action was disclosed.
Solomon Lucas and Gardiner Greene, for appellant.
William H. Shields, for appellee.
BALDWIN, J. (after stating the facts). Under Gen. St. § 3318, Pub. Acts 1893, p. 250, c. 88, it is provided that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic Ins. Co. v. Pat DiNardo Auto Sales, Inc., CV930300662S
...125 Conn. 501, 504, 7 A.2d 446 (1939); Schmidt v. Town of Manchester, 92 Conn. 551, 555, 103 A. 654 (1918); Cunningham v. Cunningham, 72 Conn. 157, 160, 44 A. 41 (1899); In re Jonathan P., 23 Conn.App. 207, 211, 579 A.2d 587 (1990); DeVita v. Esposito, 13 Conn.App. 101, 111, 535 A.2d 364 (1......
-
Imperial Cas. and Indem. Co. v. State
...could be raised on appeal because errors arising from absence of actual knowledge always subject to review); Cunningham v. Cunningham, 72 Conn. 157, 160, 44 A. 41 (1899) (same); Suarez-Negrete v. Trotta, 47 Conn.App. 517, 522, 705 A.2d 215 (1998) (" 'Connecticut courts have concluded that t......
-
Smith v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenwich
...198 Conn. 77, 88, 502 A.2d 388 (1985). Because this charter limitation is applicable law, we will address it. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 72 Conn. 157, 160, 44 A. 41 (1899).10 Section 6-266(a) of the Greenwich Land Use Regulations provides in pertinent part: 'The preliminary layout shall incl......
-
Boardman v. Burlingame
... ... 405, 411, 56 A. 625; or ... where a controlling statute was overlooked by court and ... counsel at the trial, Cunningham v. Cunningham, 72 ... Conn. 157, 44 A. 41; Schmidt v. Manchester, 92 Conn ... 551, 555, 103 A. 654. But, where we do this, it is not ... because ... ...