(2) Old Alimony Case Summaries
1. LYNDE v. LYNDE, 181 U.S. 183 (1900): Suit to recover unpaid alimony and to seek order for continuing alimony. Back alimony = $7,840, and $80/week awarded by state court. The common worker only earned around $40-$50/month at this period in history. The burden for the alimony was not imposed upon labor, but accumulated wealth. The court stated: "The decree of the court of chancery of New Jersey, on which this suit is brought, provides, first, for the payment of $7,840 for alimony already due, and $1,000 counsel fee; second, for the payment of alimony since the date of the decree at the rate of $80 per week; and, third, for the giving of a [$100,000] bond to secure the payment of these sums....."
2. SISTARE v. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1 (1910): The court stated: "In 1899, by a judgment of the supreme court of the state of New York, the plaintiff in error was granted a separation from bed and board from her husband, the defendant in error, and he was ordered to pay her weekly the sum of $22.50 for the support of herself and the maintenance and education of a minor child." This alimony award by itself is around 2 times what the average worker earned in a year back then. Alimony arrears = $5,805 - almost 12 years labor for the average worker. Consider one of the footnotes that quoted the state laws of the time: "Sec. 1772. Support, maintenance, etc., of wife and children. Sequestration.-Where a judgment rendered, or an order made, as prescribed in this article, or in either of the last two articles, requires a husband to provide for the education or maintenance of any of the children of a marriage, or for the support of his wife, the court may, in its discretion, also direct him to give reasonable security, in such a manner and within such a time as it thinks proper, for the payment from time to time of the sums of money required for that purpose. If he fails to give the security, or to make any payment required by the terms of such a judgment or order, whether he has or has not given security therefor, or to pay any sum of money which he is required to pay by an order, made as prescribed in 1769 of this act, the court may cause his personal property, and the rents and profits of his real property, to be sequestered, and may appoint a receiver thereof. The rents and profits, and other property, so sequestered, may be, from time to time, applied, under the direction of the court, to the payment of any of the sums of money specified in this section, as justice requires." [Note: no mention of garnishing the wages (labor) of a worker.]
3. BENNETT v. BENNETT, 208 U.S. 505 (1908): The lower court awarded the following in the divorce: "The decree dissolved the marriage between plaintiff and defendant, awarded her the custody of their child, awarded her the homestead as her sole property and $6,000 permanent alimony and $500 attorney's fees. The decree vacated the order made for temporary alimony and the payment of $100 attorney's fees. The decree was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory. This appeal is from that part of the decree awarding alimony and attorney's fees." $6,500 was around 13 year's labor for the average worker back then. The average wage today is around $12/hour. This equates to around $24,000/year. Imagine a $12/hour wage earner being ordered to give up his property today and having to pay 12 years labor all at once; a sum of around $288,000! Does inflation justify using legal fiction to hide slavery? However, consider the wealth that this man tried to hide as revealed by the court: "The record demonstrates that the order for alimony was reasonable in itself and reasonable in relation to the means and obligations of defendant to plaintiff. According to plaintiff's petition, and presumably according to proof submitted [208 U.S. 505, 513] to the court upon the application for alimony, of which defendant had notice, plaintiff was compelled by his cruelty to leave him with her child, then only a month old. She had no means to support herself and child. She was sick and unable to seek work. She was without means to carry on her suit for divorce. This was her situation as presented to the court, and defendant did not appear to deny it. He did not appear to deny that he owned real estate in the county where he lived of the value of $20,000, and in other places of the value of $14,000; that he had bank deposits of $10,000, and other personal property of the value of $15,000." This property alone amounts to $59,000. The average worker today makes around $24,000/year instead of around the $500 - $600 range in 1913. Using the higher 1913 figure inflation can be computed at 40 ($24,000/$600 = 40). Workers make 40 times more than workers did in 1913, but the things they buy have greatly increased in price. If prices keep up with inflation, then inflation does nothing to elevate the workers. So $59,000 in property in 1908 is roughly worth 40 times that today. So by today's standards, Bennett would have been trying to hide around $2,360,000 in property! He tried to hide his property by putting it in another person's name - a son from a previous marriage.
4. BARBER v. BARBER, 62 U.S. 582 (1858): Interesting quote by the court: "We disclaim altogether any jurisdiction in the courts of the United States upon the subject of divorce, or for the allowance of alimony, either as an original proceeding in chancery or as an incident to divorce a vinculo, or to one from bed and board." Alimony awarded in 1844 was $360 per year in this case. In 1825, a schoolteacher only made around $200 - $300/year, and a slave's wages were reported to be around 50 cents a day (authority: The Trail of Tears - The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation, by John Ehle, Doubleday, N.Y., 1988, pages 200 & 66 respectively.) Therefore, based on a slave's wages back then, $360 would take the slave, based on a 6 day work week, over 2 years to earn with nothing left over for the slave to live on.
5. GOULD v. GOULD , 245 U.S. 151 (1917): Look at the alimony award granted by the state court: "A decree of the Supreme Court for New York county entered in 1909 forever separated the parties to this proceeding, then and now citizens of the United States, from bed and board; and further ordered that plaintiff in error pay to Katherine C. Gould during her life the sum of $3,000 every month for her support and maintenance." This amounts to $36,000/year in alimony. It would have taken the average worker around 60-70 years to earn that much back then. Justice McReynolds quoted from Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575 (1901) in this case to justify why Mrs. Gould did not have to pay income tax on her alimony. In Rose v. Rose (1987), Justice O'Connor used the same case, but she wants to apply this principle to all economic classes of people, not just the wealthy who can obviously afford to pay and still be left with enough money to live on.
6. PENNINGTON v. FOURTH NAT. BANK OF CINCINNATI, OHIO , 243 U.S. 269 (1917): 14th amendment not violated by alimony being paid out of bank deposits pursuant to court orders. No mention of what the alimony award was in the divorce decree.
7. SIMMS v. SIMMS, 175 U.S. 162 (1899): The divorce decree of June 13, 1896 awarded the following: "...$ 750 counsel fees, and $150 a month for her maintenance from December 14, 1893, amounting in all to the sum of $5,250, exclusive of costs." The alimony arrearages plus the counsel fees amounted to $6,000. This was around 10-12 year's of labor for the average worker back then. The alimony award of $150/month was around 3 times the earnings of the average worker per year.
8. BELL v. BELL, 181 U.S. 175 (1901): Alimony award was $3000/year to be paid in quarterly installments. This represented around 5-6 year's worth of labor for the average worker back then for each year of alimony.
9. LAING v. RIGNEY, 160 U.S. 531 (1896): The divorce decree of June 11, 1887 stated: "that the defendant pay alimony pendente lite at the rate of $100 per month 'from the filing of the bill up to the date of this order,' and thereafter at the rate of $45 per week, together with the costs of the suit, and the sum of $150 for counsel fees." One alimony payment for a week was about as much as the average worker made in a month back then.
10. YARBOROUGH v. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202 (1933): Daughter, now ready for college and living with her grandfather in S.C., in 1930 tried suing her father for $50/month and $300 in attorney's fees in S.C. court. Father was resident of Ga. and had satisfied his alimony judgement pursuant to Ga. divorce decree issued in 1929. This decree stated: "It is considered, ordered and adjudged that said mortgages be, and they are hereby transferred, sold and assigned by the plaintiff, W. A. Yarborough to the defendant, Mrs. Susie B. Yarborough to the extent of One Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,750.00), and the plaintiff, W. A. Yarborough, does hereby transfer, sell and assign said mortgages to R. D. Blowers, of Spartanburg, South Carolina, as Trustee for Sadie Yarborough, minor daughter of plaintiff and defendant, to the extent [290 U.S. 202, 207] of One Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,750.00). ... The amount to be thus received by R. D. Blowers as Trustee for Sadie Yarborough, minor daughter of plaintiff and defendant, shall be expended by him in his discretion for the benefit of the minor child, including her education, support, maintenance, medical attention and other necessary items of expenditure." The money paid for his daughter's support came from his mortgage income, not his labor, and the $1,750 was just for one year's alimony.
11. DE LA RAMA v. DE LA RAMA, 201 U.S. 303 (1906): The divorce decree stated: "Upon the trial, the court decreed a divorce to the plaintiff on account of her husband's adultery, as well as the payment [201 U.S. 303, 305] of $81,042.76, Mexican money, due her as her unpaid share of the property belonging to the conjugal partnership, as well as the sum of $3,200, Mexican money, as an allowance for her support since the date upon which the action was instituted, being at the rate of 400 pesos a month for eight months, with costs." Using the 40 inflation factor, her share of the property would be equivalent to over $3 million today.
12. THOMPSON v. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551 (1913): A quote from the case states: "The supreme court of the District, upon final hearing, held the Virginia divorce to be invalid, and made a decree awarding to the wife custody of an infant child born to the parties during the pendency of the proceedings, and requiring the husband to pay to the wife $75 per month for the maintenance of herself and the child, to forthwith pay to her the sum of $500 for counsel fees, and also to pay the costs of suit to be taxed." $500 is one year's labor for an average worker back then. $75 is more than the average worker made in a month back then.
13. LOUGHRAN v. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216 (1934): A quote from the case states: "...a suit in equity brought in the Supreme Court of the District in 1932, by Ruth Loughran, then resident there. The defendants are John Loughran and others, trustees of real estate there located. The estate of Daniel Loughran, Jr., deceased, is a beneficiary. The plaintiff alleges that she is Daniel's widow; and she seeks to enforce as such rights in the nature of dower and to recover unpaid alimony. She alleges that in 1926 she married Daniel in Florida after living there more than two years; that in 1927 she and her said husband established their domicile in Virginia; that in 1929, while they were residing in Virginia, she obtained there a decree of divorce from him a mensa et thoro, with an award of alimony payable monthly; and that in 1931, while she remained Daniel's wife, he died, leaving a part of the alimony unpaid." The case does not mention what the alimony amount was. The case involved dividing up the dead man's estate.
14. STREITWOLF v. STREITWOLF, 181 U.S. 179 (1901): Jurisdictional dispute; no mention of monetary awards for alimony.
15. HADDOCK v. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562 (1906): Alimony award was $780 per year; more than a year's labor for the average worker back then.
16. DUNBAR v. DUNBAR, 190 U.S. 340 (1903): The contract for support of wife and children after divorce was: "After the divorce the husband sent to a friend of his wife, to be delivered to her in performance of his agreement, a written [190 U.S. 340, 342] contract, in which he bound himself to pay to Lottie E. Dunbar, of Ashburnham, Mass., $500 yearly, so long as she remained unmarried, in monthly instalments. In that contract he also agreed to pay 'to our children, Harry H. Dunbar and Willie W. Dunbar, the sum of $250 each, yearly, until they each attain the age of fourteen years; after that age they are to be paid by me such extra allowance as will give them a good and sufficient education befitting their station in life, and a suitable maintenance until each attains the age of twenty-one years.' This writing was signed by the husband and acknowledged before a notary public of Hamilton, Ohio." The support payments per year was around 2 year's labor for the average worker at that time.
17. GARROZI v. DASTAS, 204 U.S. 64 (1907): The alimony award in this case was $75/month, or $900/year; nearly 2 year's labor for the average worker at the time. To get a further sense of the wealth involved, consider this quote from the case: "That said defendant Garrozi made several trips to Europe during the continuance of his marital partnership, and spent large sums of money by reason thereof, which were, as near as can be determined from his testimony, the following amounts: In 1889 $10,000.00 In 1890 $7,000.00 In 1895 $5,000.00 In 1896-98 $25,000.00 ___ Total $47,000.00." If we use the 40 inflation factor, his trips alone in today's dollars would have been around $1,880,000.
18. HARDING v. HARDING, 198 U.S. 317 (1905): In this case alimony included support for the minor children, but the case did not state what the amount was. However, consider the following quote from the case: "The court by an interlocutory order, fixed a sum to be paid by the husband for the fees of the solicitors of the wife, for the maintenance of the wife during the pendency of the cause, and for the support of the minor children. The case was put at issue and much testimony was taken. With this testimony extant, and nearly three years after the commencement of the suit, on January 3, 1893, a document was filed in the papers of the cause, signed by the husband and by his solicitor. In substance the paper recited that, at the time of the commencement of the suit, the wife had in her hands a considerable amount of property and money belonging to the husband which was applicable to her maintenance, and that, when this sum was expended, the husband would feel it his duty to furnish further money to support the wife, [198 U.S. 317, 326] whatever might be the result of the cause. That the husband was confident of making a successful defense to the suit, but that it seemed to him it was best for the sake of peace and to avoid scandal to put an end to the litigation by consenting to a decree in favor of the wife for a separate maintenance..." Reading the case shows a strong presumption of wealth, not labor involved.
19. CHEEVER v. WILSON, 76 U.S. 108 (1869): By 1869 standards, theses folks were quite wealthy. Consider this quote from the case: "The auditor made a very elaborate report. Assuming the Indiana decree to be valid, his conclusions were that the balance due to Wilson for his advances on the faith of the pledges of the rents, prior to the divorce or his having notice, and at the time of notice-which the auditor found to be the 11th of September, 1857-was $4627.78, including interest, and that this balance was extinguished on the 1st of January, 1863, leaving an overplus of $23.30; that there was due to the complainant the sum of $622. 97, including interest, for rents, from the time of the payment of Wilson's advances to the 1st of January, 1865, the last quarter-day before the adjustment by the auditor, and the further sum of $2437.41 and interest for rents, from the date of the decree to the time the advances were paid; that the amount of the rents, accruing from the time of the payment of the advances, to the 1st of March, 1865, from the Avenue property, [76 U.S. 108, 119] as well as the Sixth Street houses, while the defendant collected the rents of the latter, excluding the third which fell in by the death of Mrs. Hughes, was $1831.84; that the amount due to the complainant was, therefore, $3060.38, and that the sum in the hands of the defendant, Wilson, applicable thereto in payment, $1831.84, was not sufficient to pay complainant's arrears by the sum of $1295.58." If $500-$600/year was the average earnings for a worker in 1913, what do you think it was in 1869?
20. ATHERTON v. ATHERTON, 181 U.S. 155 (1901): Total alimony in this case, which included support for the minor children, amounted to $625/year. This was more than one year's labor for the average worker back then.
21. WALDRON v. WALDRON, 156 U.S. 361 (1895): Alimony award was $10,000 in this divorce. This amounts to around 20 year's labor for the average worker back then.
22. AUDUBON v. SHUFELDT, 181 U.S. 575 (1901): The court stated: "Shufeldt was and had been for several years before filing his petition in bankruptcy, a surgeon with the rank of captain in the United States army, on the retired list, and was in receipt of a salary of $175 a month, his pay as such retired officer. [181 U.S. 575, 576] The debt of $3,200 was the debt of himself and his wife, secured on land in Takoma Park, Montgomery county, Maryland, conveyed by him to his wife in March, 1898, without consideration. The debt of $800 represented arrears of alimony, granted to his former wife, Florence Audubon, on February 25, 1898, by a decree of the circuit court of Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland, in a cause of divorce, directing him to pay alimony to her at the rate of $50 a month, beginning April 1, 1898. No part of that alimony has been paid." The man's retirement salary amounted to $2100/year. That is around 4 times what the average worker made in a year back then. The alimony award still left Shufeldt $125/month to live on, and that is, assuming that he had no other income besides his salary, equivalent to around 3 year's labor for the average worker back then. In other words, the support order did not enslave Shufeldt. He was still left with enough income to live comfortably. It was not a burden imposed upon labor.
23. WETMORE v. MARKOE, 196 U.S. 68 (1904): The court stated: "On June 12, 1890, an action for divorce and alimony was begun by Annette B. W. Wetmore, wife of the plaintiff in error, in the supreme court of the state of New York, and on April 1, 1892, at special term, the plaintiff in error was found guilty of adultery as charged in the complaint, and a divorce was granted upon that ground to the defendant in error. The divorce was absolute, and awarded to the wife the custody and care of the three minor children of the marriage, and also, as alimony, the sum of $3,000 per annum so long as she should live, to be paid in quarterly instalments of $750 each on the first day of the months of July, October, January, and April of each year. There was also granted to the wife the sum of $3,000 annually, being $1,000 for the education and maintenance of each of the three minor children, to be paid in quarterly instalments, until such children should arrive at the age of twenty-one years respectively. Plaintiff in error was also re- [196 U.S. 68, 69] quired to give security for the payment of the alimony awarded. The decree did not reserve any right of subsequent modification or amendment. On January 13, 1899, there was due to the wife from the plaintiff in error, for arrears in alimony and allowance under the decree, the sum of $19,221. 60." In short, the total support order amounted to $6000/year. This support order was the rough equivalent of 12 year's labor for the average worker back then just for one year's support of his ex-wife and 3 children. This is the case Justice O'Connor used to create her legal fiction that the support obligation had a sacred place in this nation's common law heritage. As applied to wealth, her position is correct; as applied to labor, her position is in error. Today's system requires that slaves support their offspring from their allowance.