Mulhall v. Mulhall

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CONSTABLE, J.
• Citation: Mulhall v. Mulhall, 120 Md. 22, 87 A. 490 (Md. 1913)
• Decision Date: 15 February 1913
• Parties: MULHALL v. MULHALL.

87 A. 490

120 Md. 22

MULHALL v. MULHALL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 15, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Thos. Ireland Elliott Judge.

Action for a divorce by Elizabeth Mulhall against Martin M. Mulhall. From an order allowing temporary alimony and counsel fees and from another order allowing counsel fees on an appeal from the first order, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

John P. O'Ferrall, of Baltimore, for appellant.

Henry H. Dinneen, of Baltimore, for appellee.

CONSTABLE J.

The record in this case contains appeals from two orders passed by the circuit court of Baltimore city; the first allowing to the appellee alimony pendente lite and counsel fees in the lower court, and the other allowing counsel fees to the appellee, upon the appeal by the appellant, to this court from the first order.

The appellee filed on July 2, 1912, a bill praying for a divorce, a mensa et thoro, from the appellant on the ground of abandonment and desertion, and asking for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees for the prosecution of her suit, after reciting that she was wholly without funds. The bill recites, so far as is necessary for a decision of these appeals, that by reason of her husband's willful refusal to support her and their five children, she was compelled to return to her father's home in Cleveland, Ohio, in the year 1901, where she has resided ever since, living upon the bounty of her father and other relatives; with the exception of that from July, 1906, to January, 1911, her husband contributed $50 a month, and from January, 1911, to August, 1911, $30 a month, to their support, but that since said last date he has contributed nothing. That from September, 1901, to the beginning of the year 1912 the defendant was making a salary of from $3,500 to $4,000. That for the past eight years the defendant has maintained a home and lived in the city of Baltimore in adultery with a woman known by the name of Lula K. Mulhall, and who passes as the wife of the defendant. That said woman is now being kept in a sanatarium by the defendant at an expense of $100 per month. That the defendant has purchased six or more tracts of real estate in Baltimore, the title to which has been taken by the defendant in the joint names of himself and Lula K. Mulhall, "his wife," as tenants by the entireties. That all of said property was unincumbered. On the same day the court passed an order nisi, ordering the defendant to pay the appellee $100 a month alimony pendente lite and $150 for counsel fees, unless cause to the contrary was shown on or before July 20, 1912, provided a copy of bill and order was served upon defendant before July 10, 1912.

On July 17, 1912, the defendant filed an answer, among other things denying the charge of abandonment and desertion, alleging that from 1901 to 1904 he made no money, but from 1904, to October, 1911, he received a salary of $40 a week, which was later increased to $50, $60, and finally to $75 per week, until he lost his position. He neither admits nor denies that he has maintained a house in Baltimore in which he has installed Lula K. Mulhall as his wife, nor that he is keeping her at an asylum at an expense to him of $100 per month. He admits that certain property in Baltimore city has been transferred to "Martin M. Mulhall and Lula K. Mulhall, his wife, the object and intent of which will hereafter be disclosed unto your honor at the proper time." That a portion of said property is incumbered by mortgage. On the same day he also filed a cross-bill, praying for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on the ground of desertion.

On July 26, 1912, the court, after consideration of the bill of complaint, answer, and cross-bill, passed an order directing that the defendant pay the appellee $40 a month for alimony pendente lite, and $150 for counsel fee. From this order the first appeal was taken July 31, 1912.

On August 8, 1912, the appellee filed a petition setting out that an appeal had been taken from the order granting her alimony and counsel fees, and alleging that she was wholly without funds to employ counsel to defend her suit in the Court of Appeals, and that she is dependent for the necessities of life upon her father and brothers and the earnings of three of her children. And again further sets out that, while she is in destitute circumstances, her husband is the owner of a large number of valuable pieces of property situate in Baltimore, and is fully able to bear the expense of the employment of counsel by the appellee. Upon this petition an order nisi was passed, ordering the defendant to show cause, on or before August 23, 1912, why he should not pay the appellee $150 for counsel fee. On August 21, 1912 the defendant filed his answer to the petition. He denied that the appellee was wholly without...