TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coad v. Coad

Coad v. Coad. (Motion.)

Coad v. Coad, 40 Wis. 392 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 15, 1876
Judges
Ryan
Citations
40 Wis. 392
Headnotes
JDxvoucb : Suit money. Oil the husband’s appeal from a judgment of divorce in favor of the wife (which appears to have given all the appellant’s property to the respondent by way of alimony), it appearing that the respondent had married again before tlie time for appeal from the judgment had expired, 'and that her second husband was still living, this court denies her motion f or an order on the appellant to pay her a sum sufficient to enable her to litigate the appeal.
Summary
APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for Iowa County.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ryan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ryan, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of divorce in favor of tbe wife against tbe husband. Tbe judgment appears to bave given all tbe appellant’s property to tbe respondent, by way of alimony.

Tbe respondent married again before tbe time for appeal from tbe judgment bad expired, and her second husband is living.

She now moves, under sec. 16, cb. Ill, R. S., for an order on tbe appellant to pay to her. a sum sufficient to enable her to litigate this appeal.

In general, it appears to us that a man who marries a woman, competent to marry only by a judgment of divorce, *393 before tbe time has expired when the judgment may be reviewed in this court- — -always a dangerous and delicate proceeding, — or within which other proceedings on foot of the judgment may be taken, may be held to assume his wife’s litigation and its expenses beyond taxable costs. The statute goes on the wife’s dependence on her husband, or late husband, for expenses of the litigation. And we are not inclined to hold that it was intended to entitle her to this sort of bigamous dependence, on two husbands at once.

In any view, the statute leaves the subject in the discretion of the court. And in the circumstance stated, we are indisposed to exercise the discretion in favor of the respondent.

By the Gourt. — The motion is denied; the costs to abide the event of the appeal.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1882–1883: 11886–1887: 11892–1893: 11896–1897: 11904–1905: 11912–1913: 11940–1941: 118822026peak 1882 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clarke v. Burke27 N.W. 22 (Wis. 1886)
  2. Penningroth v. Penningroth71 Mo. App. 438 (1897)
  3. Elies v. Elies300 N.W. 493 (Wis. 1941)
  4. State ex rel. Shrader v. Phillips32 Fla. 403 (1893)
  5. Stark v. Stark91 S.W. 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  6. Sumner v. Sumner12 N.W. 21 (Wis. 1882)

Most recent

  1. Elies v. Elies300 N.W. 493 (Wis. 1941)
  2. Mengel v. Mengel138 N.W. 495 (Iowa 1912)
  3. Stark v. Stark91 S.W. 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 1905)
  4. Penningroth v. Penningroth71 Mo. App. 438 (1897)
  5. State ex rel. Shrader v. Phillips32 Fla. 403 (1893)
  6. Clarke v. Burke27 N.W. 22 (Wis. 1886)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list