Day v. Day
Citations
- 15 Idaho 107
- 96 P. 431
- 1908 Ida. LEXIS 86
Syllabus
<p>Divorce — Allowance Pendente Lite.</p> <p>1. Dnder the provisions of sec. 2472, Kev. Stat., ‘‘While an action for, divorce is pending, the court may, in its discretion, require the husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife to support herself or her children, or prosecute or defend the action.”</p> <p>2. This statute empowers the court, during the pendency of the action, upon a proper showing made by the wife for that purpose, to compel the husband to provide her with the means necessary to enable her to prosecute or defend the action.</p> <p>3. The object and purpose of alimony, pendente lite, is to assist the wife in maintaining herself until the termination of the suit, and the amount should be adequate for this purpose and be governed by the needs of the wife.</p> <p>4. No uniform rule can be announced for the guidance of the court in determining the amount of alimony pendente lite, as each particular case must be decided upon the facts and circumstances as they appear from the pleadings and proofs.</p> <p>5. In determining the amount of allowance, the court should take into consideration the wealth and social standing of the parties, their manner of living, the present available means of the wife, and the ability and income of the husband, her health and probable needs while the suit is pending, as well as all other circumstances which may aid the court in determining the amount necessary to maintain the wife during the suit, according to her former manner of living.</p> <p>6. Where the marriage of the parties is admitted, in determining the amount of alimony the court should attempt to place each party in that position that neither should have the advantage of the other, in waging the suit or in presenting the evidence to prove or disprove the falsity of the allegations made.</p> <p>7. Where the marriage is admitted, and the evidence shows that for seven months prior to the marriage the husband paid the plaintiff, who afterward became
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “This statute empowers the court ... to compel the husband to provide her [the wife] with the means necessary to enable her to prosecute or defend the action.”
- \This statute empowers the court ... to compel the husband to provide her [the wife] with the means necessary to enable her to prosecute or defend the action.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ailshie, Stewart, Sullivan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Speer v. QuinlanIdaho Supreme Court· 1974-07-26· cited 65×
- Murphey v. MurpheyIdaho Supreme Court· 1982-10-21· cited 25×
- Rubin v. RubinCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1963-12-06· cited 19×
- Campbell v. CampbellIdaho Court of Appeals· 1991-06-27· cited 14×
- Olsen v. OlsenIdaho Supreme Court· 1976-11-17· cited 11×
- Kaufmann v. KaufmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1921-07-14· cited 6×
- Ward v. WardSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1962-03-30· cited 2×
- Burns v. BirrellBucks County Court of Common Pleas· 1950-09-05
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.