Newman v. Newman

• Citation: 1873 WL 8429,69 Ill. 167
• Parties: AUGUSTUS NEWMANv.SARAII C. NEWMAN.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

69 Ill. 167

1873 WL 8429 (Ill.)

AUGUSTUS NEWMAN

v.SARAII C. NEWMAN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county.

Mr. J. HENRY TRUMAN, for the appellant.

Mr. WILLIAM HOPKINS, and Mr. ARNO VOSS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

Sarah C. Newman filed a bill for divorce against her husband, Augustus Newman, in the circuit court of Cook county, on the 17th day of December, 1870.

The bill alleged, as a ground for divorce, willful desertion and absence two years.

At the January term, 1871, the defendant answered the bill, denying the desertion, and charged in his answer that in fact the complainant deserted him at the time she alleged he deserted her. At the same time he filed a cross-bill, praying for divorce in his behalf on the ground of willful desertion, as charged in his answer.

At this same term of court, on application of complainant, the court entered a decree that the defendant should pay complainant, as alimony pendente lite, $25 per month from January 10th, and also pay Hopkins & Voss, her solicitors, $50, which decree was complied with by the defendant.

On the 3d day of April, 1872, the cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant on both bill and cross-bill. Application was then made by complainant's solicitors for a further sum in liquidation of their fees. This motion was postponed, but a decree was at the time entered granting a divorce to the defendant on his cross-bill, and dismissing complainant's bill. Afterwards, and on the 1st of November, 1872, the court made an order that the defendant forthwith pay to the solicitors, Hopkins & Voss, the sum of $150 for services in defending in the suit brought by the cross-bill. From this judgment of the court the defendant appealed.

Courts of chancery in this State, while a cause for divorce is pending and undetermined, have the right to allow alimony pendente lite, on a proper showing, where the wife has no means. Petrie v. The People, 40 Ill. 343.

Courts of chancery also have the power, where the wife sues for divorce, and a decree is rendered in her favor, to grant her permanent alimony and solicitor's fees. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 35 Ill. 113.

The law casts upon the husband the duty suitably to maintain his wife according to his ability and condition in life.

In the case of Wheeler v. Wheeler, 18 Ill. 40, this court, in discussing the liability of the husband to furnish support to the wife, said: “Alimony, as applied to the marital relation, is that maintenance or support which the husband, on separation, is bound to provide for the wife.”

In a divorce suit between husband and wife, while the matters in controversy are being litigated, the wife will be presumed to be entitled to support until it is shown, by the result of the trial, that her claim is forfeited. Growing out of, in a great measure, this obligation of the husband to support the wife, is the further provision of our equity jurisprudence that, while the suit for divorce is undetermined, the court may, upon...