Case Name: Samuel C. Myers v. Minnie Myers
Court: Cuyahoga County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1909-01-25
Citations: 22 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 218
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel C. Myers v. Minnie Myers.
Judges: I-Ienry, J.; Winch, J., and Metcalfe, J. (sitting in place of Marvin, J.), concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 22
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
ALLOWANCE OF ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE PURELY DISCRETIONARY.
Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.
Samuel C. Myers v. Minnie Myers.
Decided, January 25, 1909.
Alimony Pendente Lite in Discretion of Court.
An award of alimony pendente lite is in the discretion of the court wherein the action is pending, and where there has been no abuse of discretion no appeal lies to the higher courts.
William A. Spill, for plaintiff in erroi\
Riley & McQuigg, contra.
I-Ienry, J.; Winch, J., and Metcalfe, J. (sitting in place of Marvin, J.), concur.
This proceeding in error is prosecuted to reverse an order allowing alimony pendente lite, in an action for alimony still pending in the court of common pleas. The plaintiff in error is a locomotive engineer, whose earnings are from $85 to $158 per month, and has living with him two children by a former marriage; a son who is still a minor, and a daughter of the age of 22. The defendant in error is about 23 years old.

Opinion:
An answer filed by plaintiff in error, who was defendant below, denies the allegations of the petition, and at the hearing of his wife's application for alimony pendente lite, he sought to introduce evidence that she had left him, not for good cause, but because he failed to give her all the money she thought she ought to have. The court allowed $7 a week pending the final hearing. The court below was not required to examine fully the merits of the main action in passing upon the application for alimony pendente lite, and the testimony which it excluded was not such as to defeat that application. Unless a perfect defense to the main-action were made, at the preliminary hearing, the court's discretionary power to allow alimony pendente lite can not be doubted, and we hold that that discretion was not abused 'in this case.
Judgment affirmed.