Zeigenfuss v. Zeigenfuss

21 Mich. 414, 1870 Mich. LEXIS 105
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 6, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 21 Mich. 414 (Zeigenfuss v. Zeigenfuss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zeigenfuss v. Zeigenfuss, 21 Mich. 414, 1870 Mich. LEXIS 105 (Mich. 1870).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Complainant filed her bill for divorce against defendant, David Zeigenfuss, for ill treatment, and the bill was dis[415]*415missed in the Court below, and she has appealed. She now asks for alimony pendente lite, and for an allowance, on petition showing her want of means and her husband’s condition as to property. Oontra affidavits were presented. There was no affidavit or other showing that the appeal was brought in good faith, and for reasonable cause.

It seems to have been supposed that alimony is a matter of course in this Court. This is not so. When the wife appeals we always require some proof of the reasonableness and good faith of the appeal, and also proof that it is necessary to grant alimony against the husband to prevent a failure of justice and to save the wife from suffering. And when the wife was the moving party in the commencement of the suit, and has had her bill dismissed, the showing must be very satisfactory.

In this case there is no showing whatever as to the good faith or propriety of the appeal, and upon the question of necessity the facts are not sufficient. It appears that the husband is poor and not able to furnish any considerable amount for alimony, and that the wife’s friends are well off and not indisposed to aid her. We do not think there will be any great danger of a failure of justice by reason of the denial of alimony; and we deny the application, but without costs.

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

Related

Kjellander v. Kjellander
132 P. 1170 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1913)
Kostachek v. Kostachek
1914 OK 441 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Holcomb v. Holcomb
95 P. 1091 (Washington Supreme Court, 1908)
Duxstad v. Duxstad
94 P. 463 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1908)
Prine v. Prine
36 Fla. 676 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1895)
Halsted v. Halsted
32 N.Y.S. 1080 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Mich. 414, 1870 Mich. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeigenfuss-v-zeigenfuss-mich-1870.