Mackay v. Mackay
| Decision Date | 10 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 101.,101. |
| Citation | 83 N.J.Eq. 650,91 A. 316 |
| Parties | MACKAY v. MACKAY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Suit by Eloise Mackay against Edward Jay Mackay. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Smith, Mabon & Herr, of Hoboken, for appellant. Weller & Lichtenstein, of Hoboken, for appellee.
The complainant filed her bill of complaint against her husband, the appellant, for support and maintenance, under section 26 of the Divorce Act (2 Comp. St 1910, p. 2038).
The complainant in the bill charged her husband with having, without justifiable cause, separated himself from her, and with refusing and neglecting to support her in a suitable and proper manner.
It appeared that the wife had the custody and care of two boys, aged two and three years, respectively, the issue of the marriage.
The advisory master found the charges in the bill proven, and advised a decree directing the appellant to pay $40 a week for the support and maintenance of his wife and children.
The first ground urged by the appellant against the validity of the decree is that the Court of Chancery was without jurisdiction to make a decree in favor of the wife.
This claim is based upon the assertion of counsel of appellant that the evidence adduced before the master does not support a finding that there has been a neglect or refusal on the husband's part to maintain his wife.
We think the evidence is ample to support the finding. The husband without justifiable cause abandoned his wife, leaving their two children with her. He is an actor, by profession, and when employed during the theatrical season of 40 weeks earns from $150 to $175 a week. It appears that while earning $150 a week he was paying his wife for the support of herself and children about $110 a month. At first he paid his wife $1.50 a day, which was increased to $15 a week; the rent, coal, and gas bills being paid by him. Out of the $15 the wife was to provide all other necessaries of life. The wife had no other source of income, had no means of her own, and was in 111 health.
We think the evidence warranted a finding that the husband was guilty of refusing and neglecting to maintain and provide for his wife, in the sense in which the words are used in the statute, upon which her bill is founded, because it appeared that the husband did not, according to the income he was receiving, suitably and properly provide for her, under the circumstances.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bingham v. Bingham
...203 S.W. (Mo. App.) 468; O'Brien v. O'Brien, 49 N.J.Eq. 436; Hollingshead v. Hollingshead, 91 N.J.Eq. 261, 110 A. 19; Mackey v. Mackey, 83 N.J.Eq. 650, 91 A. 316; Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123. (3) The allowance for support and maintenance to respondent was reasonable. McGrady v. McGrady......
-
Klepper v. Klepper
...v. Robinson, 137 Mo.App. 93; Libbie v. Libbie, 166 Mo.App. 204; McGrady v. McGrady, 48 Mo.App. 668; Colin v. Colin, 144 N.W. 1005; McKay v. McKay, 91 A. 316. (2) Maintenance lite may be allowed under the maintenance statute. Behrle v. Behrle, 120 Mo.App. 677; Long v. Long, 78 Mo.App. 32; He......
-
Fid. Union Trust Co. v. Petchesky
...pendente lite. Such is an order striking an answer with leave to answer over. New Jersey, etc, Co. v. Lord, supra; Mackay v. Mackay, 83 N. J.Eq. 650, 91 A. 316. III. Orders appealable within forty days and which also may be reviewed on appeal from the final decree. Decker v. Ruckman, 28 N.J......
-
Bingham v. Bingham
...203 S.W. (Mo. App.) 468; O'Brien v. O'Brien, 49 N.J. Eq. 436; Hollingshead v. Hollingshead, 91 N.J. Eq. 261, 110 Atl. 19; Mackey v. Mackey, 83 N.J. Eq. 650, 91 Atl. 316; Sweasey v. Sweasey, 126 Cal. 123. (3) The allowance for support and maintenance to respondent was reasonable. McGrady v. ......