Tracy v. Tracy

Decision Date23 September 1943
Docket NumberNo. 27886.,27886.
Citation221 Ind. 590,50 N.E.2d 662
PartiesTRACY v. TRACY.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action by Eleanor Tracy against William Patrick Tracy for separation from bed and board. From an interlocutory order striking out plaintiff's application for temporary support and attorneys' fees to prosecute her action, plaintiff appeals.

Order reversed.Appeal from Lake Superior Court No. 5; Harold L. Strickland, judge.

Edwin J. Fitzgerald and Martin J. Downey, both of Hammond, for appellant.

Charles Levin, of Hammond, for appellee.

RICHMAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order striking out a wife's application for temporary support for herself and children and for money to pay attorneys to prosecute her action for separation from bed and board brought pursuant to Chapter 48 of the Acts of 1903. The husband persuaded the trial court that in such an action no order with respect to attorney fees and support may be made until final decree.

Such a holding ignores the words ‘practice and proceedings' (particularly the latter) in § 4 of the Act, § 3-1231 Burns' 1933, § 937 Baldwin's 1934, reading: ‘In granting a separation from bed and board for a limited time, the same length of residence and proof thereof, and the practice and proceedings of the court shall be the same as in cases of absolute divorce.’ The absolute divorce statute, Chapter 43 of the Acts of 1873, in § 17, provides that ‘pending a petition for divorce, the court * * * may make * * * such orders for the disposition of the persons, property and children of the parties as may be deemed right and proper and such orders relative to the expenses of such suit will insure to the wife an efficient preparation of her case and a fair and impartial trial thereof. * * *’ The statute has since been amended specifically to provide for attorneys' fees. § 3-1216 Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 923 Baldwin's Supp.1939.

The filing of application for temporary support and suit money, the hearing thereof and the order of the court thereon are steps commonly taken in actions for absolute divorce. In other states similar steps have been thought to come within the definition of ‘proceedings.’ Jackson v. Jackson, 1938, 294 Ill.App. 508, 14 N.E.2d 276;Hallett ex rel. State v. Hallett, 1936, 153 Or. 63, 55 P.2d 1143; Ruch v. State, 1924, 111 Ohio St. 580, 146 N.E. 67. We think the word was so understood and used in the Act of 1903. It follows that the Court erred in striking out appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brown v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 8, 1946
    ...... Ind. 525] It is asserted that no interlocutory orders are. contemplated by the statute. This contention was made and. overruled in Tracy v. Tracy, 1943, 221 Ind. 590, 50. N.E.2d 662. . .          . Appellant next contends that the title of the act of 1903 was. not broad ......
  • Brown v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 8, 1946
    ......This contention was made and overruled in Tracy v. Tracy, 1943, 221 Ind. 590, 50 N.E.2d 662.         Appellant next contends that the title of the act of 1903 was not broad enough to permit ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT