It is said to be usual in a divorce decree in England to add the words dum sole et ea8ta (while she remains unmarried and chaste), "no doubt for the reason that it would seem a parody of justice to suggest that a woman should lose her allowance if she marries again, but should not lose it if she lives with a man as his mistress. When indeed the reputation of the wife is spotless, these words may be omitted." [1898] P. 138.
It may be that a divorce is refused and yet alimony allowed to the wife, but not if the husband is willing to be reconciled on prop er terms and has not abandoned her; Lath am v. Latham, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 307.
In California, a divorce having been de creed against a non-resident, an order for alimony and for custody of children was va cated on appeal ; 30 Am. Law Rev. 604, with elaborate discussion and criticism of this ruling. A decree for it cannot be made against a defendant who is not served with process for appearance, does not appear, or has rfo property within control of the court ; Lynde v. Lynde,'54 N. J. Eq. 473, 35 Atl. 641. .Whether it can be had after a final decree in the divorce case which is silent as to it, ex cept through amendment of decree, qucere; id.
Where a judgment for alimony is rendered in a court of one state, its enforcement in another, according to the laws of the latter, is not a deprivation of property without due process of law; Lynde v. Lynde, 181 II. S. 183, 21 Sup. Ct. 555, 45 L. Ed. 810.
Alimony pendente Lite Is granted much more freely than permanent alimony, it be ing very much a matter of course to allow the former, unless the wife has sufficient separate property, upon the institution of a suit ; 1 Hagg. Eccl. 773 ; 1 Curt. Eccl. 444 ; Logan v. Logan, 2 B. Monr. (Ky.) 142 ; Col lins v. Collins, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 9; Rose v. Rose, 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 166 ; Harding v. Harding, 40 Ill. App. 202 ; either for the purpose of obtaining a separation from bed and board ; Smith v. Smith, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 255 ; a divorce a vincu/o matrimonit; Ryan v. Ryan, 9 Mo. 539 ; Jones v. Jones, 18 Me. 308, 36 Am. Dec. 723 ; Hewitt v. Hewitt, 1 Bland Ch. (Md.) 101; or a sentence of nul lity, and whether the wife is plaintiff or de fendant. The reason is that it is improper for the parties to live in matrimonial co habitation during pendency of such a suit, whatever may be its final result. She need only show probable ground for divorce to entitle her to alimony ; Wooley v. Wooley, 24 Ill. App. 431. Upon the same principle, the husband who has all the money, while the wife has none, is bound to furnish her, whether plaintiff or defendant, with the means to defray her expenses in the suit ; Jones v. Jones, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 146 ; Story v. Story, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 421; Daiger v. Daiger, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 335 ; Tayman v. Tay man, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 393. See Taylor v. Tay lor, 46 N. C. 528. This alimony ceases as soon as the fault of the wife is finally deter mined ; Dawson v. Dawson, 37 Mo. App. 207.
It has been held that a court of chancery has jurisdiction to grant alimony to a wife when the conduct of the husband renders it unsafe for •er to live with him or he turns her out of doors ; Almond v. Almond, 4 Rand. (Va.) 662, 15 Am. Dec. 781; but there is a conffict of decisions as to whether, without a statute, an independent suit for alimony can be sustained ; see 12 Am. Dec. 257, note, where the cases supporting both views are collected. Is not a matter of independent claim or right, but is incidental to a suit for divorce or other relief between husband and wife ; Lynde v. Lynde, 54 N. J. Eq. 473, 35 AtI. 641.
Alimony is not a sum of money nor a spe cific proportion of the husband's estate giv en absolutely to the wife, but it is a con tinuous allotment of sums payable at regu lar intervals, for her support from year to year ; Wallingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 Harr.
& J. (Md.) 485; Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N. H. 309, 32 Am. Dec. 362 ; Clark v. Clark, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 85 ; Miller v. Miller, 75 N. C. 70 ; Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449 ; Crain v. Ca vana, 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 109; but in some states statutory allowances of a gross sum have been given to the wife under the name of alimony ; see Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N. H. 309, 32 Am. Dec. 362 ; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 185 ; Herron v. Herron, 47 Ohio St. 544, 25 N. E. 420, 9 L. R. A. 667, 21 Am. St. Rep. 854; Burrows v. Purple, 107 Mass. 428 ; McClung v. McClung, 40 Mich. 493 ; Ross v. Ross, 78 III. 402 ; Williams v. Williams,• 36 Wis. 362; Miller v. Clark, 23 Ind. 370 ; Blankenship v. Blankenship, 19 Kan. 159 ; Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460, 23 Pac. 395, 17 Am. St. Rep. 266. This would be enforced by the courts; Wil son v. Hinman, 182 N. Y. 408, 75 N. E. 236, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232, 108 Am. St. Rep. 820, citing to the same effect Storey v. Storey, 125 III. 608, 18 N. E. 329, 1 L. R. A. 320, 8 Am. St. Rep. 417; followed in Whitney v. Warehouse Co., 183 Fed. 678, 106 C. C. A. 28; if in gross it should not ordinarily exceed one-half the husband's estate ; McCartin v. McCartin, 37 Mo. App. 471. It must secure to her as wife a maintenance separate from her husband ; an absolute title in specific property, or a sale of a part of the husband's estate for her use, cannot be decreed or con firmed to her as alimony ; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 322; Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana (Ky.) 181; Wal lingsford v. Wallingsford, 6 Harr. & J. (Md.) 485; Purcell v. Purcell, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 507 ; Rogers v. Vines, 28 N. C. 293. Nor is alimony regarded, in any general sense, as the separate property of the wife. Hence she can neither alienate nor charge it ; Ro maine v. Chauncey, 60 Hun 477, 15 N. Y. Supp. 198; if she suffers it to remain in arrear for more than one year, it has been held that she cannot generally recover such arrears ; 3 Hagg. Eccl. 322 ; if she saves any thing from her annual allowance, upon her death it will go to her husband; Clark v. Clark, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 85 ; Sterling v. Ster ling, 12 Ga. 201; if there are any arrears at the time of her death, they cannot be recov ered by her executors ; 8 Sim. 321; 8 Term 545 ; Clark v. Clark, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 85; as the husband is only bound to support his wife during his own life, her right to alimony ceases with his death; Smith v. Smith, 1 Root (Conn.) 349 ; Sloan v. Cox, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 75 ; Jamison v. Jamison, 4 Md. Ch. Dec. 289 ; Wilson v. Hinman, 182 N. Y. 408, 75 N. E. 236, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232, 108 Am. St. Rep. 820 ; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 132 Mich. 343, 93 N. W. 889 ; Lockwood v. Krum, 34 Ohio St. 1; Whitney v. Elevator & Ware house Co., 183 Fed. 678, 106 C. C. A. 28 ; Mar tin v. Martin, 33 W. Va. 695, 11 S. E. 12; Storey v. Storey, 23 Ill. App. 558 ; Stahl v. Stahl, 114 Ill. 375, 2 N. E. 160 ; Casteel v. Casteel, 38 Ark. 477 ; and see Miller v. Mil ler, 64 Me. 484 ; In re Lawton, 12 R. I. 210; and it ceases upon reconciliation and co habitation. The cases upon the effect of the husband's death upon a decree for alimony involve the question whether alimony is to be considered merely as support to which the wife is entitled by virtue of the marital relation, or as her interest in the joint prop erty. They are collected in a note in 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 232, where it is said that they can not be satisfactorily harmonized on either theory.