Wass v. Wass
| Citation | 26 S.E. 440,42 W.Va. 460 |
| Parties | WASS. v. WASS (two cases). |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1896 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Alimony Pendente Lite — Attorney's Fees on Appeal.
1. The question as to the amount of alimony pendente lite which shall be allowed the wife in a suit brought against her by her husband for divorce is one addressed to the sound discretion of the court under all the circumstances of the case, and the condition of the parties must also be taken into consideration.
2. Fees for prosecuting an appeal in the supreme court from a decree against the wife in the circuit court will not be allowed distinctively as alimony pendente lite, but the court, in its discretion, will allow a reasonable amount to enable her to carry on her suit.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from circuit court, Ritchie county.
Suits by William Wass against M. E. Wass and by M. E. Wass against William Wass for a divorce. From the decree entered, M. E. Wass appeals. Affirmed.
B. F. Ayres, for appellant.
Freer & Robinson, for appellee.
ENGLISH, J. Two suits were pending in the circuit court of Ritchie county, one in the name of Martha E. Wass against William Wass, and the other in the name of William Wass against Martha E. Wass. In the last-named suit the plaintiff prayed for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, and in the first-named the plaintiff prayed for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, and for alimony. Such proceedings were had in the case of M. E. Wass against William Wass that on the 21st day of February, 1801, a decree was entered therein granting the plaintiff a divorce from bed and board, and costs, including an attorney's fee of $20, to be paid her attorneys, and which, in addition to the sum of $100, before allowed them by the court, was directed to be in full of their services to that date. On the 1st day of September, 1893, it was ordered in said cause that all suit money and alimony allowed plaintiff against the defendant do cease and determine, and on the 28th day of October. 1893, it was ordered that said cause be dropped from the docket, having been theretofore determined. On the 1st day of July, 1893, a final decree was rendered in the case of William Wass against Martha E. Wass, which decreed that on the ground of willful and continued desertion and abandonment the complainant, William Wass, be forever divorced from Martha E. Wass, and that for said cause Martha E. Wass be forever divorced from William Wass, and that the bond of matrimony heretofore entered into and celebrated between them be dissolved, and they each relieved and released from the bonds thereof; and that the rights of each, either initiate or consummate, in the property of the other, real or personal, from that time forth do cease and determine; that the complainant do pay the sum of $25 to the counsel of defendant as additional counsel fees, and that all suit money and counsel fees further do then cease. An appeal was applied for and obtained by the defendant, M. E. Wass, and on the 16th day of November, 1895, this court set aside the two decrees complained of entered on the 1st day of September, 1893—the one in the case of M. E. Wass against William Wass, stopping the allowance and further payment of the wife's alimony; the other in the case of William Wass against Martha E. Wass, decreeing a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, —and remanded said causes with directions to dismiss the bill of plaintiff, Wass, and in the other to ascertain, decree, and secure the payment of a definite proper sum as alimony, all things considered, and retain or deal with the case as authorized by law. As soon as the mandate of this court had been recorded In the circuit court, the said M. E. Wass filed a petition asking the circuit court to allow her counsel fees to pay her attorneys for prosecuting her case In this court, and also to restore her alimony. And the said William Wass also filed a petition setting forth the amounts of money he had been compelled to pay in the shape of costs, counsel fees, and alimony by reason of the litigation with his wife, praying that the alimony allowed the said M. E. Wass be entirely stopped, and that her suit be dismissed, and that the court might make such order in regard to costs as might be right and proper, and that no costs be paid except those in this court. The petitionof William Wass was answered by M. E. Wass, and on the 28th day of March, 1896, the case was heard upon said petitions and answers, and the court decreed that said M. E. Wass be allowed the gross sum of $120 as a reasonable and proper sum for her alimony, and it was decreed that she recover that sum in gross, or, at the election of William Wass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cecil v. Knapp
...Rice, 88 W.Va. 54, 106 S.E. 237; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 72 W.Va. 349, 78 S.E. 360; Coger v. Coger, 48 W.Va. 135, 35 S.E. 823; Wass v. Wass, 42 W.Va. 460, 26 S.E. 440; Bailey v. Bailey, 21 Gratt., Va., 43. Alimony is generally considered as an allowance to the wife out of the earnings of the ......
-
State ex rel. Cooper v. Garvin
...the pendency of an appeal from such court to this Court. Maxwell v. Maxwell, 67 W.Va. 119, 67 S.E. 379, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 712; Wass v. Wass, 42 W.Va. 460, 26 S.E. 440. The first point of the syllabus in Wass v. Wass, supra, reads as follows: 'The question as to the amount of alimony pendente ......
-
State ex rel. Hammond v. Worrell
...to be paid by a husband to his wife pending the granting or refusal of an appeal. State ex rel. Copper v. Garvin, supra. In Wass v. Wass, 42 W.Va. 460, 26 S.E. 440, the first point of the syllabus reads as follows: 'The question as to the amount of alimony pendente lite which shall be allow......
-
Kittle v. Kittle
......Va. 131, 76 S. E. 837; Goff v. Goff, 60 W. Va. 9, 21, 53 S. E. 769, 9 Ann. Cas. 1083; Coger v. Coger, 48 W. Va. 135, 35 S. E. 823; Wass v. Wass, 42 W. Va. 460, 464, 26 S. E. 440. Ordinarily the wife's estate and capacity to earn money, where the husband's Income is ample and ......