Trenchard v. Trenchard
| Decision Date | 09 November 1954 |
| Citation | 141 Conn. 627,109 A.2d 250 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Olga M. TRENCHARD v. Herbert H. TRENCHARD. Herbert H. TRENCHARD v. Olga M. TRENCHARD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Max R. Lepofsky, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was George J. Lepofsky, Norwalk, for appellant (defendant and plaintiff Herbert H. Trenchard).
Donald H. McGannon, Norwalk, with whom was George F. Carroll, Jr., Norwalk, for appellee (plaintiff and defendant Olga M. Trenchard).
Before INGLIS, C. J., BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN and WYNNE, JJ., and RYAN, Superior Judge.
In the first-named action the plaintiff wife sought a judgment for past support and for an order of continuing support from the defendant husband. In the second-named action the husband as plaintiff sought an accounting against his wife as defendant. The court found the issues for the plaintiff wife in the first action and for her as defendant in the second. From the judgments rendered the husband has appealed. In the first action he assigned error in the finding and in the overruling of his claims of law. In the second action the appeal concerns the question whether funds which were deposited in savings banks by the wife in her name and her husband's belonged to both. The findings in the two cases are the same with respect to the controlling issues in the dispute between husband and wife. It is clear that the decision in the first-named case disposes of the claim by the husband that he was entitled to an accounting.
The following is a summary of the facts found: The parties were married on June 6, 1936. The husband was employed by the Hat Corporation of America from 1936 to 1942 and earned between $32.72 and $43.85 per week. The wife was employed by the General Electric Company from 1936 to 1944 and earned a regular salary which varied between $1038.04 and $2074.54 annually. After their marriage, the parties lived in Norwalk in a seven-room house belonging to and occupied also by Mrs. Amanda W. Trenchard, the husband's mother. For approximately the first year, the parties operated their household on a budget, pooling their earnings. This arrangement ended the latter part of 1937 because of the husband's dissatisfaction with it. The husband ceased turning over any of his salary to his wife in the latter part of 1937. He was in the United States navy from July, 1942, to September, 1945. While in service, he sent to his wife from time to time about $900 in addition to an allotment made by him, which amounted to $100 a month. He requested his wife to maintain the home in Norwalk while he was overseas and this she did from her earnings and the funds sent through him. Upon the husband's discharge from service, the parties took up residence in New York City, sharing a three-room apartment with two adult friends of the husband. Because of the husband's conduct, the wife left the apartment and went to her mother's home in Trumbull. A reconciliation followed a telephone call from her, and the parties resumed living together in the home in Norwalk. From then until the final separation, the wife constantly earned money and used it in maintaining the home. The husband never turned over any money to her, but he did pay some of the expenses with funds of his own. From October, 1948, to April, 1951, the wife was compelled to expend $34 per week for her individual support.
The trial court concluded that the husband was liable for the support of the wife from and after the time of the final separation in September, 1948, and rendered judgment for $2210 in damages to her and that that the husband pay her $17 a week in the future. The finding is to the effect that the husband's conduct justified the wife in leaving him and in continuing to live apart from him, although he has requested her on occasions to return.
On August 16, 1943, the wife opened a savings account in the Bridgeport-City Trust Company. This account was payable to her or her husband, or the survivor. She opened another account on July 25, 1947,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yale University School of Medicine v. Collier, YALE-NEW
...694 (1955). Conversely, a husband is obligated to support his wife if she is living apart from him with just cause. Trenchard v. Trenchard, 141 Conn. 627, 109 A.2d 250 (1954); Churchward v. Churchward, 132 Conn. 72, 42 A.2d 659 Prior to the evolutionary changes in our common law wrought by ......
-
MacArthur v. Cannon
...the defendant wants this court to adopt his theory of the case and to retry the case, which of course we cannot do. Trenchard v. Trenchard, 141 Conn. 627, 631, 109 A.2d 250. The defendant has utterly failed to comply with our rules. Practice Book §§ 989, 990. For example, claiming the eight......
-
Capozzi v. Luciano
...to have this court retry the case and this cannot be done. Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 169 Conn. 85, 86, 362 A.2d 907; Trenchard v. Trenchard, 141 Conn. 627, 631, 109 A.2d 250; African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jenkins, 139 Conn. 418, 423, 94 A.2d 618. The decision in this case depended i......
- Local 63, Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O. v. Cheney Bros.