The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-05-03
EDGERT0N vs.. EDCERTQN.
The Divorce Obtained by the Plain
tif at Billings Was not
Void.
Judge Hunts Ruling zIs Sustained
by the State Supreme
Court.

Obligations, Of a Husband to his wiz
Whom she Leaves Him for Just
Cause.
There Ii power in the conrta OF Montan,
to compel a husband, If nbls, to support hi
deserted wifs, lsft destitute. without cause
Tbs supreme court in an opinion writer
BY Associate Justice Harwood, the othel
members of the supreme court concurring
10 decided yesterday. The court also d.
cided That the. divorce obtained by T.. d
Edgerton. president of the Second Nationa
bank Of Helena. from Kate d. Edgerton
before Hon. Thomas G. Bacn at Billings
IN 1887, is not void, but may be set aside il
Aptoper proceeding for that purt oss. Mrs
EdRsrton commenced a suit in the distric,
court of this county to set aside the divorce
obtained at Billings. and also had another
action to compel Mr.. EdRerton to pay her
alimony and provide for the support Of
their young son. Ralph. 1t will be seen by
the opinion that her attorneys said that il
the supreme court should hold the Billings
divorce was not void, but only yoidable,
they would concede that their action
was premature. The views of the
supreme court are in part that there are
two questions brought for determination
by this appeal. The first ralates to the
Jurisdiction in equity of the district courts
of thisE state, M may be stated by the fol-
lowing proposition: Have the district
courts Of this state power. in the existsnce
Of their equity Jurisdiction. TO enforce the
maintenance Of a wife by decresing proper
relief in an action brought by her against
her husband, independently Of an action
for divorce. where il is shown thathe, with
out just cause, has abandoned her, or BY
his cruelty or other improper conduct, has
given her just cause for living separate and
apart from him, md she is without means
Of support and he is able to maintain her?
An action of this character. If maintain
able at all, would naturally lie within the
equitable jurisdiction Of the district court.
That arriage relation lays upon the hus-
band an obligation to furnish his wife nee
lmensurate with his ability to provide, is a
proposition upon which there is no dispute.
1t is an obligation imposed by law as one of
the conditions of the marriage contract,
and is recognized by nil courts of Justice,
and 's enforced, in proper cases, where the
jurisdiction lien. Courts of common law
jurisdiction Gas distinguished from equity
c%ourts) enforce hat obligation by giving
judgment against the husband for neces-
sary supplies furnished the wife by third
persons. where the husband, without iuat
cause, w%ithholds the same, or abandons his
wife, or by cruelty or otherwise, makes it
unsafe or improper for her to abide at the
family home.
In this way ii will be seen that even
courts OF common law jurisdiction not only
recognize, but to some extent enforce per-
Torrance of that obligation. This juris-
diction exercised by the common law courts
was usually explained on the theory that
the law presumed the wife to be the agent
OF the husband to the. extent Of authority
to obtain upon his credit necessary ,er-
sonal supplies. Bnt it is plainly observa-
Bile by an investigation Of these oases, that
the CONNER law courts proceed upon u
different ground than the mere relation of
had abandoned his wife, or driven
her away BY cruelty or other Improper con-
duct. and had sought to avoid responsible
ity OF her maintenance, by giving notice
~forblddlng parties to furnish her supplies,
and attempting to revoke her authority in
Notwithstanding such notice. held him
bound for her necessary supplies, by an
obligation irrevooable at will, arising by
virtue Of the marriage relation, and gave
judgment against him. 1t will be observed
in these cases., too, shat where the wife was
living separate and apart from her hus-
band it was always a proper inquiry
she had just cause for SO doing;
and il she had not, that was a GOOD de.
Although the common law courts will
give augment against the husband in guch
cases, it must DO admitted by all to be an
and inadequate relief. for in
many cases she may be unable to obtain
credit under such circumstances, where she
can only offer the chance of compelling
payment by suit against a husband who is
9ndeavoring to ESCAPE such liability. Her
is also embarrassed by the reluot-
ancs of parties generally, to become di-
:ectly or indirectly implicated in family
or to undertake to show a iustih-
,ation for the conduct of the wife, which
operates as II powerful influence in deter
ing persona from giving her credit. The
'eliet offered by the Common Law courts is
Inadequate for still other reasons. While
t may succeed for a brief period in some
'ases, the derelict husband is loft free to
larry out his purpose, to abandon and ne.
,lect tho support of his wife, and avoid
UGH judgments altogether BY disposinu 81
lis property, or by carrying it beyond the
In this way he not only
gnores his obligation, but sets at naupht
he attempt OF the common law courts to
ompel lts performance. There are other
spects of his method of GRANTING
elief which ought not to he
asHed without observation. If that /,
emedy happens to be etfectual in some :
asses, because the husband fails to use the =
neans within his power to escape the liza {
lllty, that method of enforcing mainten- !
nee would involve a multiplicity of law 6
OltE. FOR The wife m1lf nanp11v rc Or, ~. I
JUS parties to secure supplies; whereby l
'ould arise a separate cause Of action IN I,
hvor of each party. from whom supplies !
'ere obtained, and 40 often aa one cpllec- !
WAS made another cause of action .
'ould begin to aoorue. Again, the made !
uacy of relief worked out by the common I
w remedy is not alone relative to the no. (
ltlon of the wife. 1t has it's counterpart =
t hardship in reference to the husbnnd :
case the husband has just grounds for !,
Is conduct. and desires to establish tho u
he would have to present his de- t
snse III as many actions at law as HIM. p
s71ed to be brought against him for ann 9
lies furnished the wife; for having estnb- !
his defense in one or more actiona !
ould not preclude the ANNOYANCE. loss of )
mo and expense of defending other -
stlonH9 of he same character. So tha !
uestlon naturally arises whether or not. q
pon p %incitle, these cases lie within the /
OF courts of equity, aud the y
lust pointed out suggest two II
principles OF equity, aa Q
'onnds upon which courts exercising L