Meginniss v. Meginniss

• Decision Date: 27 June 1924
• Docket Number: 59.
• Parties: MEGINNISS v. MEGINNISS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

124 A. 393

144 Md. 39

MEGINNISS v. MEGINNISS.

No. 59.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 27, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Henry Duffy, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Suit for alimony by Ida Meginniss against Paul Meginniss. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER ADKINS, and OFFUTT, JJ.

Abram C. Joseph, of Baltimore (Daniel C. Joseph, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Eugene O'Dunne, of Baltimore, for appellee.

OFFUTT J.

This is a proceeding instituted by the appellee against the appellant in the circuit court of Baltimore City to secure alimony for the support of herself and the maintenance of her oldest child.

In her bill of complaint filed on September 9, 1922, she alleged that she was married to the defendant at Alexandria, Va., on November 4, 1914, and lived with him until June, 1921, when at his request she joined in a sale of their joint property that he gave her one-half the proceeds of that sale, and thereafter in June, 1921, he deserted and abandoned her without just cause, although he provided an apartment for her, paying rent at the rate of $50 a month therefor, and since then has continued somewhat irregularly to send her $10 a week for the maintenance of herself and child; that there were two children of the marriage, both living, both boys one aged six and the other five years, and that the father had taken the younger boy to live with himself and his family; that there was no valid reason why the defendant should live apart from the complainant, or why he should not re-establish their home. She further stated that he had a salary of about $300 a month with an automobile company, and some additional income.

Defendant in his answer denied the substantial averments of the bill charging him with abandoning the complainant without cause. He also denied that he earned a salary of $300 a month plus commissions.

Testimony was taken in connection with the issue formed by these pleadings, and, after a hearing, the court on March 19, 1923, ordered "that the defendant, Paul Meginniss, pay to the complainant, Ida Meginniss, his wife, for her support and maintenance of their child, Paul Meginniss, Jr., the sum of $25 a week as permanent alimony," and also ordered that the custody of the infant, Paul Meginniss, Jr., be awarded to the complainant, and that the custody of the other child be given to the mother of the defendant, the court retaining jurisdiction over both children, and allowing reasonable access of each parent to each child. From that order this appeal was taken.

The only question presented by the appeal is whether the evidence in the case was sufficient to warrant the court in passing that order.

Before discussing the weight and the effect of the evidence we will refer to the testimoney of the several witnesses in the case. The complainant, after testifying to her marriage and the birth of her two children, said that she lived with the defendant until their home was sold in 1921; that she consented to sell the home because he had asked her to do it, and had promised her that, if she did it, he would bring back to her their youngest child, whom he had taken away some time before; that after the home was sold she told him to take her to her uncle's place in the country, where she would stay a couple of weeks until he could find a place for her. When he came out to see her there she asked him to take her "in town,"; that she could not stand it there any longer; and that he then took her to her father's, where she stayed for about six months, during which time he paid her about $10 a week for the support of herself and child; that after that he took an apartment for her upon her agreeing to sign a release necessary to procure the sale of some part of his father's estate; that he secured an apartment on Garrison avenue, but that he refused to come there, although he paid the rent for it; that on the 1st of the following January she received a notice to vacate that apartment, and moved to a place on Bonner road, for which she pays $40 a month. When asked what cause her husband had to leave her, she said:

"I don't know as I gave him any. He said when we sold the home that we would get another place; everything would be lovely again; we would have our children together. He intended to do the right thing. He promised me faithfully he would."

She further testified that she expected him to come to the Garrison avenue apartment to live with her, but that he only came about once a week, and then "he wanted me to be his wife in a way I didn't want to be when I wasn't living with him." She further testified that, when she asked him for money for the support of herself and child, he said, "I was pretty; he was tired of paying my bills; I could get plenty other men to pay them; why didn't I get them." She further testified that aside from such money as he gave her she had no money for the support of herself and her child. She also testified that, when he terminated the lease on the apartment he said he would send her the furniture, including her washing machine and sewing machine, but that he took them to his mother's, and told her he was going to sell them, and that he had not given her any of the furniture at all. She also said that he was employed by the White Motor Car Company at a yearly salary of $3,000, and that he had some additional income from commissions and from an interest in the Baltimore Brass Building Company. She also denied that she ever abused or illtreated him.

It also appeared that she had gotten for her interest in the house that was sold about $2,000 or $2,200, of which she had spent a considerable part.

One of the peculiar features of the case is the complainant's treatment of her second or younger child, and in her testimony she admitted that she had not treated it very well, but she explained that by saying that she was not in good health or she would not have done what she did, and intimated that she was at the time mentally unbalanced.

On behalf of the defendant Dr. Ewalt, a practicing physician who attended the Meginniss family, testified that the second child was helpless, and in a general anæmic condition from lack of nourishment when it was taken from the complainant's custody.

Frank W. Radcliffe,...