Rohrback v. Rohrback

• Citation: 23 A. 610,75 Md. 317
• Parties: ROHRBACK v. ROHRBACK.
• Decision Date: 04 February 1892
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

23 A. 610

75 Md. 317

ROHRBACK v. ROHRBACK.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 4, 1892

Appeal from circuit court, Frederick county, in equity.

Petition of Susan M. Rohrback for an allowance for counsel fees and costs in the suit of her husband, Martin N. Rohrback. for divorce. From an order dismissing her petition, petitioner appeals. Reversed.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, ROBINSON, IRVING, BRYAN, and FOWLER, JJ.

F J. Nelson, for appellant.

Wm. P. Maulsby, Jr., for appellee.

ROBINSON J.

A bill was filed in this case by the husband to obtain a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. on the ground of desertion by the wife. The case was heard on bill, answer, and proof, and the court below, being of opinion that the husband was not entitled to a divorce as prayed, dismissed the bill, and from the decree dismissing the bill the husband took an appeal. After the appeal had been taken, a petition was filed by the wife, alleging that she was entirely destitute of means to employ counsel and to pay the costs incident to the appeal that her husband was possessed of large and valuable property, consisting of real estate, stock in trade bank-stock, and private securities, amounting to between forty and forty-five thousand dollars; and, while forbearing to ask for alimony, she praved that her husband might be directed to pay to her a reasonable sum of money for counsel fees and costs. This petition the court dismissed, without regard to its merits, on the ground that, an appeal having been taken from the order dismissing the husband's bill, the court had no longer any jurisdiction in the premises. The right of a wife to a reasonable allowance for counsel fees and costs in proceedings of this kind is well settled in this state. This, indeed, was not and could not be disputed; so the only question here is whether the petition of the wife was too late, having been filed after an appeal from the order dismissing the bill. Now, the Code provides that applications for alimony "are to be heard and determined" in as full and ample manner as such questions could be heard and determined by the ecclesiastical courts in England; and it is well settled that alimony may be allowed to the wife on application by her after an appeal from an order or decree dismissing a bill in divorce proceedings. This was decided in Jones v. Jones, L. R. 2 Prob. & Div. 336. In that case an application was made by the wife for...