Case Name: Mary Maria Story v. Martin Story
Court: Michigan Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1844-06
Citations: 1 Walk. Ch. 421
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Maria Story v. Martin Story.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the court of chancery of the state of michigan
Volume: 1
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
Mary Maria Story v. Martin Story.
In a suit by or against a wife, for a divorce, if she have no separate property of her own, the Court, when necessary, on petition, will grant her temporary alimony pending the suit, and require her husband to advance money to enable her to prosecute her suit, or make her defence.
The affidavit of the husband, denying the ground on which the wife asks a divorce, is no answer to an application for alimony during the suit, but may be read to aid the Court in the exercise of its discretion as to the amount to be allowed.
Petition for temporary alimony, and for money to carry on a suit by complainant against her husband for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony, on the ground of cruelty. Defendant’s affidavit, denying the charge of cruelty, was read in opposition to the motion.
J. F. Joy, in support of the motion.
J. M. Howard, contra.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
In a suit by or against a wife for a divorce, where she has no separate property of her own to support herself and enable her to carry on her suit, or make her defence, and her husband has property, the Court will compel him to make a suitable allowance for her maintenance pending the suit, and to furnish her with the means of employing counsel. Mix v. Mix, 1 J. C. R. 108; Denton v. Denton, Id. 364; Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige R. 109. But for this wise provision of law, a wife, without relatives or friends to protect her rights, would be deprived of the means of applying to the judicial tribunals of the country for redress, when her rights were invaded by her husband; and of supporting herself pending the litigation.
Defendant's affidavit denying the cruelty, is no answer to the application, but it may, and should, be received to aid the Court in the exercise of a sound discretion, in fixing the sum to be allowed. Wright v. Wright, 1 Edw. Ch. R. 62; Smith v. Smith, Id. 255; Stanford v. Stanford, Id. 317; Poynter on Marr. and Din. 250, 251.
As the petition does not state what particular property defendant has, or what his pecuniary circumstances are, I shall direct a reference to a Master to inquire into them, and to report what amount ought to be allowed to complainant.
Motion granted.