Plaster v. Plaster
Plaster v. Plaster
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
Section six of the act respecting divorce, R. S. 196, gives the court jurisdiction to entertain appellee’s petition asking for some provision for the future maintenance of the child begotten of their marriage. According to the well settled rule in chancery, when that court once acquires jurisdiction, it can and will do complete justice between the parties, upon the subject matter in litigation.
As the decree in the divorce cause between these parties made no provision for the support of the child, and appellant was shown to be abundantly able to contribute to his support, he was morally and legally bound to bear that burthen, the more especially as the mother was in indigent circumstances.
We think, however, that the claim for her expenditures in this regard should be confined to the five years next before the commencement of this suit. The circuit court went beyond this, even back to the time of the divorce. This was error, and for the error the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Decree reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Jeptha Plaster v. Louisa Plaster
- Cited By
- 9 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Divorce and alimony—of a further allowance for maintenance of children. Dueler the sixth section of the act respecting divorce, R. S. 196, a court of chancery, having decreed a divorce between a married woman and her husband, giving to the wife the care and custody of the children begotten of the marriage, has jurisdiction to entertain a petition of the wife asking for provision for the future maintenance of such children. 2. Limitation—as to re-payment of expenses incurred. But where such petition asks for re-payment by the husband to the wife, for her expenditures in the support of the children since the divorce, the claim in that regard must be confined to the five years next preceding the commencement of the suit.