Ross v. Ross

Citations

• 69 Ill. 569

Syllabus

<p>1. Husband—liability for wife's support while lining apart from him. The husband is not responsible even for necessaries furnished his wife when residing apart from him, if she left him without good cause and without his consent; but if the separation was caused by improper treatment on his part, or he sends her away, or tliey separate by consent, without any provision for her maintenance, he will be liable for her necessary support, and to that extent he sends credit with her.</p> <p>2. Same—remedy at law and not in equity. Although it is clearly the duty of a husband to provide a suitable maintenance for his wife, if within his power, yet, according to the course of the English authorities, it is not an obligation or duty enforceable in a court of equity by decreeing a separate maintenance. The remedy at common law is by an action at law against the husband, to be brought by any person supplying the wife with necessaries according to her rank and condition.</p> <p>8. Husband and wife—separate maintenance given in equity by statute. The object of the statute of 1867 was, to remedy this defect in the common law, and to confer upon courts of equity jurisdiction to enforce the common law duty of the husband to furnish support and maintenance for his wife suitable to the condition of the parties in life, upon her application, in all cases where she is living separate and apart from him without her fault, or in other words, under such circumstances as would enable her to avail herself of the common law remedy of obtaining such support upon the credit of her husband.</p> <p>• 4. Therefore, if the wife is living separate and apart from her husband on account of improper treatment by him, or he sends her away, or if he assents to or acquiesces in her leaving him, he will be liable under the statute to a decree in equity for her separate maintenance and support, on bill filed by her.</p>