MacNamee v. MacNamee

D.C. Circuit

MacNamee v. MacNamee

188 F.2d 45, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 216

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1951

Docket10402_1

StatusPublished

This text of 188 F.2d 45 (MacNamee v. MacNamee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MacNamee v. MacNamee, 188 F.2d 45, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 216 (D.C. Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting maintenance pendente lite in a suit by appellee-wife for separate maintenance. Appellant-husband argues that the order was an abuse of discretion ; he alleges that the wife’s conduct had amounted to constructive desertion; and he emphasizes that she had been unsuccessful in an earlier suit against him for limited divorce on the ground of cruelty. On the other hand, appellant advised the court that he would refuse to receive the wife in a common home, though she stated that she would be willing to join him. Under all the circumstances we think that the action of the District Court was entirely proper. See Melvin v. Melvin, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 57, 129 F.2d 39, 40; Quarles v. Quarles, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 42, 179 F.2d 57, 58; Schulz v. Schulz, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 179 F.2d 59.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting maintenance pendente lite in a suit by appellee-wife for separate maintenance. Appellant-husband argues that the order was an abuse of discretion ; he alleges that the wife’s conduct had amounted to constructive desertion; and he emphasizes that she had been unsuccessful in an earlier suit against him for limited divorce on the ground of cruelty. On the other hand, appellant advised the court that he would refuse to receive the wife in a common home, though she stated that she would be willing to join him. Under all the circumstances we think that the action of the District Court was entirely proper. See Melvin v. Melvin, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 57, 129 F.2d 39, 40; Quarles v. Quarles, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 41, 42, 179 F.2d 57, 58; Schulz v. Schulz, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 179 F.2d 59.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 F.2d 45, 88 U.S. App. D.C. 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macnamee-v-macnamee-cadc-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack