Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 23 March 1896 |
| Citation | 44 P. 675,7 Colo.App. 549 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Error to district court, Lake county.
Action by Pernecy Taylor against George Taylor to annul a marriage. There was a judgment dismissing the action, and plaintiff brought error. Petition for alimony pending the proceedings in error. Denied.
A.S Blake and A.J. Sterling, for plaintiff in error.
Chas Cavender, for defendant in error.
An application for alimony has been made herein. It covers several matters,--the support of the plaintiff in error counsel fees for her attorneys, and the cost and expense of printing abstracts and briefs. The suit was begun to annul and dissolve an alleged marriage between the plaintiff in error and the defendant. The action came to a hearing, and the bill was dismissed. The complexion of the suit is somewhat peculiar. There was no averment or proof of a marriage solemnized in the ordinary way, but the union averred was an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. In other words, it was what is designated in the books and by counsel as a "common-law marriage." In disposing of this motion, we do not determine whether or not such an application will lie in this court, in favor of the defeated party, nor do we consider the principles by which motions of this description are ordinarily measured and determined except in one aspect. Where the defeated party makes an application in the appellate court, all agree that the record must be gone into and examined in order to ascertain whether or not grave error has been committed. We recognize the force of this rule, and the extent of it; and in obedience to its requirements, we have carefully examined the record, aided by the learned and exhaustive briefs filed by counsel. We are unable to discover errors which leave the impression that they are of sufficient importance to compel a reversal of the judgment, unless we accept counsel's proposition that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. This must be assented to before we can conclude there is error in the record which will compel us to disturb the findings. Since this is the situation, we do not believe the case is one wherein the plaintiff in error is entitled to alimony pending the hearing. This contention may result in considerable hardship, but the attorneys will have to take their chances on the result; and the plaintiff in error must care for her self, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Combs v. Tibbitts
...C.R.S. 2006 (granting the right to seek maintenance in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation); Taylor v. Taylor, 7 Colo. App. 549, 44 P. 675 (1896) (alimony cannot be granted where no marital relation exists at time of application for alimony). Mere cohabitation does ......
-
Eickhoff v. Eickhoff
...it. Daniels v. Daniels, supra; Cowan v. Cowan, 10 Colo. 540, 16 P. 215; Kiefer v. Kiefer, 4 Colo.App. 506, 36 P. 621; Taylor v. Taylor, 7 Colo.App. 549, 44 P. 675. But, if such prima facie case is established, alimony should be awarded. The complaint in this case sufficiently avers the marr......
-
Pierce v. Otte
...the point is raised, we think it should not be decided upon an application for alimony pendente lite. * * * The principle announced [Taylor v. Taylor, supra] is authority for converse of the proposition that, when the trial court in such a case finds that there was a legal marriage between ......
- Taylor v. Taylor
-
Federal Remedies for Sexual Discrimination Against Male Divorce Litigants
...the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the husband has the duty to support the wife, even though he is poor. See also Taylor v. Taylor, 7 Colo. App. 549, 44 P. 675 (1896), holding that a wife is entitled to suit money since the husband has the burden of putting his wife on equal footing. S......