Opinion
No. 50/233.
08-08-1922
DUNLAP v. DUNLAP.
Clifford I. Voorhees, of New Brunswick, for complainant. Edwin G. Adams, of Newark, for defendant.
Suit by Louella P. Dunlap against Cornell Dunlap. Judgment for defendant.
Clifford I. Voorhees, of New Brunswick, for complainant.
Edwin G. Adams, of Newark, for defendant.
BACKES, V. C. The complainant charges that her husband has, without justification, abandoned her and refuses to support her. Both elements must be established—the abandonment and refusal to support. The facts disclosed show clearly that the wife deserted the husband, not he her, as claimed. The proofs satisfy me also that the husband does not refuse, and has not refused, to support his wife. On the contrary, he has contributed liberally from his salary, assuming the figures of his income and disbursements to be correct as he states them in his schedule to his answer. Mrs. Dunlap contributed towards the upkeep of the household and the expenses of the family. She has an independent income at the present time in the neighborhood of $7,000 a year, and it has been more in the past. The family has been living extravagantly—in the sense of far beyond the husband's means. They would not have lived nearly so well had he been the sole provider. I presume Mrs. Dunlap got tired contributing the major portion of the family expenses. This seems to have been an outstanding cause of the separation. At any rate disagreement has come between the two, and it looks as though one has grown tired of the other. They have been incompatible for years. The complainant has not sustained her cause, and the bill must go down—it must be dismissed.
She asks not only support for herself but also for their child. Not having sustained her right of action for her own support, both prayers must be denied. The right to exact support for the daughter is incidental to the wife's right to support, and, she having failed in this, the prayer for relief in respect of the child's support cannot be entertained in these proceedings.
This does not mean, however, that the father is relieved of his obligation to support the child, now in the custody of her mother. It simply cannot be allowed in this ease; the main cause having failed. That matter may be brought upon an application for the custody and support of the child, on petition and order to show cause under the Infants' Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 2810, § 20).