Rutland v. Rutland

Counsel

E.L. Dent, of Collins, for appellant. It is settled in this state that a wife denied a support by her husband may bring her bill for alimony without seeking a divorce. Verner v. Verner, 62 Miss. 260 ; McFarland v. McFarland, 64 Miss. 452 , 1 So. 508 ; Scott v. Scott, 73 Miss. 580 , 19 So. 589; Ross v. Ross, 89 Miss. 66 , 42 So. 382; Johnston v. Johnston, 182 Miss. 1 , 179 So. 853 ; Dewees v. Dewees, 55 Miss. 315 . See, also, Lang v. Lang et al., 70 W. Va. 205 , 73 S.E. 716, 29 Ann. Cas. 1913d 1129, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 950; Stafford v. Stafford (Ala.), 74 So. 354; 1917D, L.R.A. 773; Tutwiler v. Tutwiler (Ala.), 87 So. 852 ; 30 C.J. 1086, par. 891; 17 Am. Jur. 410, par. 501; 17 Am. Jur. 420, par. 515. W.U. Corley, of Collins, for appellee. We have read with care the brief filed by counsel for appellant and noted the authorities cited with interest. These authorities cited by counsel deal with the question of the wife's right to sue for alimony independent of a bill for a divorce. We do not question that right at all. We grant that the decisions are uniform on the question of the right of a wife to sue for permanent alimony, without suing for a divorce, but that is not the question raised by this demurrer. It will be noted that the bill charges, "This is an urgent and necessitous case for temporary alimony," and in the prayer of the bill we find only these words, "That the court may hear the evidence and adjudge this an urgent and necessitous case requiring the defendant to pay temporary alimony and attorney's fee as the statute sets out in that regard." No authorities are cited for the reason that we know of no case directly in point in Mississippi, or elsewhere for that matter, upholding or denying a wife the right to seek temporary alimony, or alimony pendente lite during a suit, that does not exist.