Wilson v. Wilson, Record No. 2387.
Citation | 178 Va. 427 |
Decision Date | 24 November 1941 |
Docket Number | Record No. 2387. |
Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Parties | LAURA VIRGINIA WILSON v. EARL S. WILSON. |
1. ALIMONY — Power of Equity to Award — Exists in Suit for Divorce or for Alimony Alone Independently of Statutes. — A court of equity, without regard to statute, has the absolute power to allow alimony, either in a suit for divorce, or in a suit for alimony alone.
2. ALIMONY — Power of Equity to Award — Not Dependent upon Pecuniary Amount Involved. — The power of a court of equity to allow alimony is not dependent upon the pecuniary amount involved, but is derived by virtue of its elastic power to deal with a matter of public interest, regardless of the amount involved.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Jurisdiction of Surpreme Court of Appeals — Where Award of Alimony Less Than Three Hundred Dollars — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an appeal from a decree denyiny alimony, appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Supreme Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction since the controversy was not one involving three hundred dollars exclusive of costs and was not otherwise appealable.
Held: That since a court of equity has inherent jurisdiction to award alimony, either within or without the provisions of section 5111 of the Code of 1936, the contention of appellee was without merit.
4. ALIMONY — Amount — Within Discretion of Trial Court. — The trial court has a very broad discretion in fixing the amount of alimony, and the appellate court will not interfere with such discretion unless it is clear that some injustice has been done.
5. APPEAL AND ERROR — Matters of Discretion — When Discretion of Trial Court Disturbed. — While the exercise of a sound discretion by the trial court will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court of Appeals, the exercise of an arbitrary discretion by the trial court will not be permitted.
6. ALIMONY — When Alimony May Be Recovered — Circumstances Making Award Duty of Trial Court — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an appeal from a decree denying alimony in a divorce suit. The trial court, at the time of awarding appellant a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, awarded her alimony for a limited period. On two subsequent occasions the trial court extended the payment of alimony, but appellant's prayer for a further extension was denied. The uncontradicted evidence was that appellant's parents were dead; that she was unable to find employment; that she was in need of medical care; that she had no income; and that appellee was earning fifty dollars per week.
Held: That it was the duty of the trial court to award alimony and counsel fees in an amount warranted by the exigencies of the case.
Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk. Hon. Allan R. Hanckel, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Sam W. Nathan and Herman A. Sacks, for the appellant.
A. A. Bangel, for the appellee.
This appeal brings under review a decree entered by the chancellor of the circuit court, denying appellant alimony in a divorce suit then pending in said court.
The appellee has moved this court to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it was improvidently allowed.
The basis of the motion is stated thus:
Though this court has repeatedly dealt with the question, the cases involving the power of a court of equity to allow alimony regardless of the amount involved, were not cited in the petition or the brief.
It is the settled doctrine in this Commonwealth that a court of equity, without regard to statute, has the absolute power to allow alimony, either in a suit for divorce, or in a suit for alimony alone.
The power of the court to allow alimony is not dependent upon the pecuniary amount involved, but is derived by virtue of its elastic power to deal with a matter of public interest, regardless of the amount involved.
In Heflin Heflin, 177 Va. 385, 14 S.E.(2d) 317, Mr. Justice Gregory, in a most illuminating opinion, has marshalled all the Virginia cases dealing with the power of a court of equity to allow alimony pursuant to the provisions of section 5111 of the Code, or by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction.
Therefore, it follows as a corollary that, since a court of equity has inherent jurisdiction to award alimony, either within or without the provisions of section 5111 of the Code, the contention of appellee is without merit and the motion to dismiss is overruled.
Appellant assigns as error the entry of the decree denying continued payment of alimony.
The facts set forth in the petition, and not denied, are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial