Merriman v. Hawbaker
Decision Date | 02 January 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 620.,620. |
Parties | MERRIMAN v. HAWBAKER et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
W. A. Doss, of Monticello, Ill., for plaintiff.
E. J. Hawbaker and R. P. Shonkwiler, both of Monticello, Ill., for defendants.
This is a bill filed on December 30, 1933, against the wife of the plaintiff, her two solicitors, E. J. Hawbaker and R. P. Shonkwiler, and the judge of the circuit court of Piatt county, seeking to enjoin each of them from the enforcement of an order of the said circuit court entered on the 18th day of December, 1933, in a divorce proceeding brought by the present plaintiff against his wife, Nelle P. Merriman. In that order the judge allowed to Mrs. Merriman for her solicitors' fees in the divorce suit, the sum of $225, subject to a credit of $50 previously paid, and directed payment of the balance of $175 within a certain time.
It appears from the bill that after plaintiff had sued his wife for divorce, on October 11, 1933, he filed his voluntary petition in bankruptcy in this court and was thereupon adjudicated bankrupt and that, though the order making an allowance to his wife for solicitors' fees was entered subsequent to the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, it was based upon services rendered the wife before that time. The question submitted to the court then, is this: "Is an allowance to a party in a divorce suit for solicitors' fees within the meaning of the word alimony or of such character as to make it a non-dischargeable debt?" If the answer is in the affirmative, the application for injunction must be denied and the bill dismissed for want of equity. If the answer is in the negative, there should be a decree for a permanent injunction.
Alimony, a word derived from the Latin term alere, meaning to nourish or sustain, commonly means in law all allowances, whether partial or in gross, which a husband by order of court, in pursuance of his common-law or statutory duty to support his wife pays her for her maintenance while they are separated or divorced. Alimony pendente lite ordinarily includes a reasonable allowance for prosecution of the wife's suit or in defense of that of her husband. The subject-matter is fully covered by a statute in Illinois (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. Ill. 1933, c. 40, § 16, Cahill's Rev. St. Ill. c. 40, par. 16) containing inter alia re the following provisions:
It is said that alimony cannot be regarded as a debt owing from a husband to wife, Barclay v. Barclay, 184 Ill. 375, 56 N. E. 636, 51 L. R. A. 351; but that it is rather to be considered as a penalty imposed for the failure to perform a duty, Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 74, 25 S. Ct. 172, 49 L. Ed. 390, 2 Ann. Cas. 265; Romaine v. Chauncey, 129 N. Y. 566, 29 N. E. 826, 14 L. R. A. 712, 26 Am. St. Rep. 544. And a discharge in bankruptcy does not bar the collection of alimony and an allowance for the support of minor children, Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U. S. 340, 23 S. Ct. 757, 47 L. Ed. 1084; Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U. S. 68, 25 S. Ct. 172, 49 L. Ed. 390, 2 Ann. Cas. 265; Deen v. Bloomer, 191 Ill. 416, 61 N. E. 131. In 1903, section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, governing discharge, was amended to prevent discharge of "liabilities for * * * alimony due or to become due, or for maintenance or support of wife or child," etc. 11 USCA § 35.
Although judgments are, by statute, liens on the defendant's real estate, a decree for alimony payable by installments does not create a lien unless the record affirmatively shows that the court so intended, Scott v. Scott, 80 Kan. 489, 103 P. 1005, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 132, 133 Am. St. Rep. 217, 18 Ann. Cas. 564, and note. In the absence of a statute there is no lien, Kerr v. Kerr, 216 Pa. 641, 66 A. 107, 9 Ann. Cas. 89; Swansen v. Swansen, 12 Neb. 210, 10 N. W. 713; Campbell v. Trosper, 108 Ky. 602, 57 S. W. 245; Masters v. Masters, 249 Ill. App. 252.
The Supreme Court of Illinois has in Stillman v. Stillman, 99 Ill. 196, 39 Am. Rep. 21, defined "alimony" as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Hart
...directly or directly to her attorney at the Court's discretion as does I.C. 31-1-11.5-16(a). The Seventh Circuit quoted Merriman v. Hawbaker, 5 F.Supp. 432 (E.D.Ill.1934) with approval, wherein Judge Lindley wrote as It is obvious, under the legal principles hereinbefore set forth and the s......
-
Goldman v. Roderiques
...as to discharge in bankruptcy should apply to all. See In re Hargrove, 361 F.Supp. 851, 853--854 (W.D.Mo.1973); Merriman v. Hawbaker, 5 F.Supp. 432, 434 (E.D.Ill.1934). The cases take note of other substantive and procedural similarities that point to the same result. Like alimony or suppor......
-
Marriage of Lytle, In re
... ... Morrey, 24 Ill.App.3d 77, 320 N.E.2d 503 (1974); see also In the Matter of Cornish, 529 F.2d 1363 (7th Cir. 1976); Merriman v. Hawbaker, 5 F.Supp. 432 (E.D.Ill.1934).) These cases, however, were decided under the now-defunct rule that whether certain obligations were ... ...
-
Morrey v. Morrey
... ... Although this is a question of first impression in the Illinois state courts, a case strikingly similar on its facts is Merriman v. Hawbaker (E.D.Ill., 1934), 5 F.Supp. 432, 434. In holding that an allowance of attorney's fees was a nondischargeable debt, the District Court ... ...