Add to ORKGIn 1928, a New York court ordered D, who was suing for annulment of his marriage, to pay alimony pendente lite and attorney\u27s fees to W. This judgment had remained unsatisfied. W, in 1931, brought a bill in equity in Massachusetts asking that D, now a resident of Massachusetts, be ordered to pay the amount due on the judgment. Held, although the local statute (Gen. L., c. 209, sec. 6) did not permit suits at law between husband and wife, that mere circumstance was not sufficient grounds for granting equitable relief on the ground of the inadequacy of the legal remedy. Weidman v. Weidman (Mass. 1931) 174 N.E. 206
Husband and wife were domiciled in Wisconsin. When marital troubles developed, the parties agreed th...
Plaintiff, although continuing to reside with her husband, brought an action in equity against him f...
A husband domiciled in Wisconsin obtained a divorce decree in Wisconsin from his non-resident, absen...
Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1 N. Y. 2d 342, 135 N. E. 2d 553 (1956), cert. granted, 352 U. S. 820 (195...
Plaintiff brought suit in Georgia to enforce a final divorce decree obtained by her husband in Flori...
It was not until the decisions in Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, and Wetmore v. Markoe; 196 U. ...
In a prior action against H for separate maintenance, W was awarded custody of their children and mo...
Husband and wife were divorced in Wisconsin in 1956 by a judgment which awarded alimony, custody of ...
Contracts settling the property interests of a husband and wife or providing for support of the wife...
The award of permanent alimony upon a divorce a vinculo, though involving the judicial process, is h...
This paper discusses whether or not a divorce court, by granting a continuing order for support and/...
Husband and wife were residents of state A, in which a personal tort action between the spouses was ...
The Duke and Duchess of Arion, nationals and domiciliaries of Spain, neither of whom had ever been t...
It will be recalled that in Williams v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States held ...
WITH THE decision of Wolfe v. Wolfe 1 the Ohio Supreme Court joins the majority of American jurisdic...
Husband and wife were domiciled in Wisconsin. When marital troubles developed, the parties agreed th...
Plaintiff, although continuing to reside with her husband, brought an action in equity against him f...
A husband domiciled in Wisconsin obtained a divorce decree in Wisconsin from his non-resident, absen...
Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1 N. Y. 2d 342, 135 N. E. 2d 553 (1956), cert. granted, 352 U. S. 820 (195...
Plaintiff brought suit in Georgia to enforce a final divorce decree obtained by her husband in Flori...
It was not until the decisions in Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, and Wetmore v. Markoe; 196 U. ...
In a prior action against H for separate maintenance, W was awarded custody of their children and mo...
Husband and wife were divorced in Wisconsin in 1956 by a judgment which awarded alimony, custody of ...
Contracts settling the property interests of a husband and wife or providing for support of the wife...
The award of permanent alimony upon a divorce a vinculo, though involving the judicial process, is h...
This paper discusses whether or not a divorce court, by granting a continuing order for support and/...
Husband and wife were residents of state A, in which a personal tort action between the spouses was ...
The Duke and Duchess of Arion, nationals and domiciliaries of Spain, neither of whom had ever been t...
It will be recalled that in Williams v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States held ...
WITH THE decision of Wolfe v. Wolfe 1 the Ohio Supreme Court joins the majority of American jurisdic...
Husband and wife were domiciled in Wisconsin. When marital troubles developed, the parties agreed th...
Plaintiff, although continuing to reside with her husband, brought an action in equity against him f...
A husband domiciled in Wisconsin obtained a divorce decree in Wisconsin from his non-resident, absen...