The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-02-27
SUIT AGAINST WIFE fOR SUPPORT Husband Claims She Promised
 to Pay All Bills
RATHER UNIQUE COMPLAINT
Thomas E. Mehaffey Sues Emma Mehaffey, His Wife, for $37oo on Grounds That She Did Not
 Support His as Agreed.

most remarkable suit has been filed in the Circuit court in which Thomas J. Mehaffey seeks to recover certain sum of money from his wife, Emma Me haffey, for non-support. The piaihllH claims that In 1903 his wife received SSfVo from a third party to a piece Of prop erty in Montgomery. which had belonged to the plaintiff under an agreement that she support him for life. He alleges that his wife was to pay his board bills, cloth ing bills and other necessaries of life ''all of which she has not done.'
 In past years there have been numerous cases on file Ill which wife mas brought suit against her husband for non-support but the unique suit brought by MT. Me haffey has broken all records in Jeffer- sen county and it is feared by many who have read the complaint that precedent will be set which might prove inconven- tent to many wives who have bank ac- counts.
 According to the ordinary trend of hu- man affairs man when married promises to support and care for his wife and she in turn promises to obey and honor him. It Is quite probably that many husbands and wives on account of undue excitement at the time of the ceremony, do not re- member this but an examination of sev- eral of the forms Of ceremony show that this Is exactly what was agreed upon at the tying of the nuptial knot. Under these circumstances the husband would natural iy be supposed to support the wife as he had promised but in the Mehaffey case the circumstances are different. Accord ing to the husbands complaint a later agreement was entered into by which the wife was to do the supporting.
 A lawyer of a technical turn of mind advanced the theory yesterday that the promises made at a marriage ceremony were binding and under the terms of the contract wife could be made, techincal- ly, to support the husband without sub sequent contract. The wife promises to obey and honor her husband The law yer in question advances the argument that if the husband commanded his wife to support him she would have to do it. Otherwise 1t would be gross disobedience. This would be a breach of contract, ac- cording to theory, and the wife would be liable. Under this novel theory the hus- band would not be liable as his wife had already broken the contract and he could not be bound thereby.
 Following is copy of the complain in the suit filed by Mir. Mehaffey:
 'Plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of S37oo damages for breach of con- tract made and entered into by and be- tween the plaintiff and the defendant on. or about, August 1903, by which the de- fendant for and in consideration of, the plaintiff signing a certain deed to a certain house and lot, to third party whose name is unknown to the plaintiff, said house and lot being situated in Montgomery county Montgomery, Ala, on the northeast corner of Jefferson and Cambridge streets, said lot being 100x15O feet and the same fronting 100 feet Said lot was the property of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff paid for with his own money and for and in consideration of the plaintiff signing the deed, to the said property conveying the same to third party as aforesaid. and the money for said property being paid to the defendant for said house and lot in the sum of s3700. for this consideration the defendant then and there agreed to take care of the plain tiff the remainder of his life, pay his board and clothing bills and all bills for the necessaries of life, all of which the de- fendant has failed to do. all to plaintiff s damage in the sum aforesaid, hence this suit"