Ross v. Ross
| Decision Date | 26 October 1881 |
| Citation | 47 Mich. 185,10 N.W. 193 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ross v. Ross. |
Courts will not compel a husband, in a divorce proceeding, to make an allowance to the wife for maintenance and counsel fees unless it is made to appear that she has no property of her own. There is no presumption of law that she has no property. An order for such allowance, where no such showing is made will not sustain proceedings for the punishment of the husband as for contempt in disobeying the same.
Appeal from superior court of Detroit in chancery.
Griffin & Dickinson, for complainant.
Hawley & Firnane, for defendant and appellant.
This is an appeal from an order directing that the defendant be committed for contempt in not paying alimony in accordance with an order made on the thirteenth day of September, 1880. This order of September 13th was granted on the showing made by the complainant in her bill of complaint.
The complainant in her bill alleges, that during their married life, "her said husband and herself have accumulated valuable real estate," describing the same, besides other property which she is unable to describe, and that the defendant derives an income from his business of about $4,000 per annum. She also alleges that the defendant has frequently threatened, "that he would dispose of all their property *** and that he would rent the house where your oratrix is living."
This is all that is set forth in the bill touching the question of property, and it is at least ambiguous--in that it does not clearly show whether the property which they have accumulated during their married life, is in the defendant's name or their joint names. The complainant nowhere alleges or intimates that she has no property; for aught that appears she may have abundant means wherewith to support herself and children and carry on this suit.
It is only in cases where it is made to appear, by the bill of complainant or petition, that the wife has no separate property of her own to support herself and enable her to carry on her suit, and her husband has property, that the court will compel him to make a suitable allowance for her maintenance and to enable her to employ counsel. Stacy v Stacy, Walker, Ch. 421. No such showing was made in this case, but it is claimed that the presumption of law is that the wife has no property. That presumption can no longer be indulged in under our statutes, which has...
To continue reading
Request your trial