Case Name: PEARSON v. PEARSON
Court: Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals of Tennessee
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1823-09
Citations: 1 Peck 27
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEARSON v. PEARSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 22–22

Head Matter:
Supreme Court of Errors and Appeals. Columbia.
September Term. 1823.
PEARSON v. PEARSON.
An appeal will lie from a decree of divorce a mensa et tkoro, being within the equity, if not the words of 1819, 81. [But see Pillow t>. Pillow, 5 Y. 420, where the ruling is otherwise, without citing this case. And, now, by the Code 8158, an appeal is the only mode of revising errors in divorce eases. See 3 Head, 225 ; 3 Cold. 550.]
But an appeal will not lie from the order for the payment of alimony then due.

Opinion:
Bill for a divorce a mensa et thoro, and upon that a decree for alimony. It was suspended upon the agreement of the husband to take home the wife and treat her well. She alleged ill treatment again, and the Court ordered the execution of the decree, and the allowance then due to be paid. Appeal brought up to the first day of the term.
The first question made upon'this record is, will an appeal lie from the principal decree ? Answer, it will by the Act of 1819, ch. 31, though not within the very words, it is within the equity of the Act, and appeals are favored and entitled to a liberal construction.
Secondly, can the defendant below appeal from the order for the payment of the alimony then due ? Answer, no; for at the end of every six months, there might be an appeal, and the plaintiff below might starve in the mean time. After the decree, the defendant below is placed under the discretion of the Court, especially, as he has submitted to the principal decree. The act of the Legislature intended to subject him to instantaneous compensation both to keep him in order and for the effectual protection and preservation of the feme, which object could not otherwise be attained.