Opinion
No. 50/45.
06-11-1921
HOAGLAND v. HOAGLAND.
Robert Newton Crane, of Plainfield, for petitioner. William A. Coddington, of Plainfield, for defendant.
Suit for support and maintenance by Elizabeth Hoagland against John S. Hoagland. On motion for alimony pendente lite and a counsel fee. Motion denied.
Robert Newton Crane, of Plainfield, for
petitioner.
William A. Coddington, of Plainfield, for defendant.
BACKES, V. C. This is a maintenance suit, based upon a constructive abandonment and refusal to support, and the application is for alimony pendente lite and a counsel fee.
The proofs as they stand do not warrant a finding that the wife was justified in leaving her husband.
"It is the duty of the wife to live with her husband at his home and to give him her services and society. Prom these obligations she is only relieved if she can show that the conduct of her husband has been such as will reasonably convince the court that her life or health was in danger or her life rendered one of such extreme discomfort and wretchedness as to incapacitate her to discharge the duties of a wife, or that the conduct of the husband, if continued, would have brought about these conditions.'" Pinkinson v. Pinkinson (Err. & App.) 113 Atl. 143.
The proofs show that the defendant maintained and supported his wife suitably during cohabitation. He is not obliged to give her separate support.
The motion will be denied.