Case Name: Halsted v. Halsted
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1856-04
Citations: 5 Duer 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: Halsted v. Halsted.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 12
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Halsted v. Halsted.
When the judgment of divorce fixes the sum to be paid as permanent alimony, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff, on a change of circumstances, to apply for an increased allowance, such an application will not be granted merely because her expenses have been increased, by the addition to her family of a person, whom the defendant is under no obligation to support, although his ability to pay may have been improved subsequent to the judgment.
At Special Term,
April, 1856.
The parties were divorced in 1846, and the amount'of the plaintiff’s permanent alimony fixed, without prejudice to her right to move to have it increased, on a state of facts, making such increase proper.
She now petitions for an increase, on the grounds, that the defendant’s circumstances have been much improved since the divorce was decreed, that her’s have not been materially, and that her expenses have been increased by reason of her contributing to the support of a person named in the petition. But it does not allege, that her own means are not abundant for her own support.

Opinion:
Bosworth, J.,
denied the motion, ón the ground, that the defendant is under no obligation, legal or moral, to support the person whose maintenance adds to the plaintiff's expenses. To increase the amount of her alimony merely on account of such expenses, would, in effect, compel the defendant to support such third person, as the plaintiff might permit to eat up her own estate.
That there may be cases in which the improvement of the pecuniary condition of such a defendant subsequent to the judgment of divorce, when considered in connection with the amount of alimony allowed by the judgment, and the social position of the parties, and their general mode of life previously, would make a further allowance just, it is not necessary to deny.
The papers.on which the present motion is based do not make such a case.