Wygodsky v. Wygodsky

³⁴⁵ Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from, an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, dated the 28th day of October, 1918, requiring the appellant to- pay to the appellee, his wife, the s-um of two hundred and fifty dollars as counsel fee, and the further sum of two hundred dollars per month' as. alimony pendente Ute, and continuing until the further order' of the Oo-urt. The bill for divorce a- mensa et Choro was filed by the husband against the wife on the 20th of September, 1918, on the ground of desertion. The defendant appeared and answered the bill on the 3rd of October, 1918, denying its allegations, and also filed a cross-bill asking for a divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion, and for alimony during the pendency of the s-uit, and for a counsel fee to> enable her to prosecute the suit.

It appears from the record that the final order allowing the alimony and counsel fee in the case was passed by the Court below, after a full hearing upon the application and an answer thereto, testimony taken and upon arguments b-y the counsel for the respective parties-, and made subject to the further order of the Co-urt. While this Court has- the undoubted right and power to review the amount allowed and fixed, as- alimony in divorce proceedings by the lower Court, it is well settled as- stated in McCaddin v. McCaddin, 116 Md. 572 , that it should not disturb the large discretion vested in the Chancellor unless it is thoroughly satisfied that there has been error in respect to the amount named. Buckner v. Buckner, 118 Md. 264 ; Crane v. Crane, 128 Md. 220 ; Westphal v. Westphal, 132 Md. 330 . The principal ground urged by the appellant for the- reversal of the order appealed from, appears- to he, that the award and amount- directed to he paid the wife is excessive, and not based upon the financial condition and income of the husband or a reasonable allowance under the testimony in the case.

While there is- no fixed rule as- to- the- award or allowance of alimony to a wife pending a suit for divorce, it was held ³⁴⁶ in Crane v. Crane, 128 Md. 220 , where the earlier eases in this Court were reviewed and considered that the rule is believed to be alnfost universal to allow a destitute wife who has been abandoned or is living apart from her husband, temporary alimony and the means of prosecuting! or defending a suit for divorce and this without any inquiry whatever into the merits. The testimony a.t the hearing of this case and set out in the record shows, that the husband has an actual cash income of $11,302.00. He testified that he was the Vice-President and General Manager of the Baltimore Oil Engine Company and had received an annual salary of ten thousand dollars for two years from the company and this amount had been paid to himl in regular monthly instalments during this period. It also appears that he owns property, including cash, to* the amount of $30,947.29, as follows: In addition to these amounts he owns 219 shares of Cosden Common stock and 1,800 abares of Baltimore Oil Engine Company, the latter holding of stock he testified was “still in an experimental stage,” and his life is insured in favor of this company for $100,000.00.

He was married on the 1st of September, 1917, and had lived with his wife, at the boarding house of the wife’s father and mother, since their marriage. The wife it appears owns no property whatever and he testified “that she considered herself we ale and not strong,” and that she was not able to attend