18 L. R. A. 95; the condition in life, place of residence, health, and employment of the husband, as demanding a larger or smaller sum for his own support; 1 Hagg. Eccl. 526, 532 ; the condition in life, circumstances, health, place of residence, and consequent necessary expenditures of the wife; Bursler v. Bursler, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 427; Ricketts v. Ricketts, 4 Gill (Md.) 105 ; Lovett v. Lovett, 11 Ala. 763 ; the age of the parties ; Miller v. Miller, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 91; Ricketts v. Ricketts, 4 Gill (Md.) 105; Schlosser v. Schlosser, 29 Ind. 488; the ability of the husband to work ; Canine v. Canine, 16 S. W. 367, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 124; Snedager v. Kin caid, 60 S. W. 522, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1347; Furth v. Furth (N. J.) 39 Atl. 128; and whatever other circumstances may address themselves to a sound judicial discretion.
So far as any general rule can be deduced from the decisions and practice of the courts, the proportion of the joint income to be awarded for permanent alimony is said to range from one-half, where the property came from the wife (2 Phill. 235), to one third, which is the usual amount ; 29 L, J. Mat. Cas. 150 ; Ricketts v. Ricketts, 4 Gill (Md.) 105; Forrest v. Forrest, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 640; Musselman v. Musselman, 44 Ind. 106 ; Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437; or even less; Draper v. Draper, 68 III. 17 ; Garner v. Garner, 38 Ind. 139. In case of alimony pendente Lite, it is not usual to allow more than about one-fifth, after de ducting the wife's separate income ; 2 Bish. Mar. Div. & Sep. § 945 ; and generally a less proportion will be allowed out of a large es tate than a small one; for, though no such rule exists in respect to permanent alimony, there may be good reasons for giving less where the question is on alimony during the suit; when the wife should live in seclusion, and needs only a comfortable subsistence; 2 Phill. Eccl. 40. See Llamosas v. Llamosas, 4 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 574 ; Briggs v. Briggs, 36 Ia. 383; Harrell v. Harrell, 39 Ind. 185 ; Williams v. Williams, 29 Wis. 517.
Courts will take judicial notice that it is not infrequent in divorce proceedings for parties to agree on details of • alimony; Whitney v. Warehouse Co., 183 Fed. 678, 106 C. C. A. 28.
An action upon a decree for alimony may be maintained In a court of another state where the amount is fixed and presently due and enforceable, but not when payable in future instalments; Hunt v. Monroe, 32 Utah, 428, 91 Pac. 269, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249, where the cases are critically reviewed; Page v. Page, 189 Mass. 85, 75 N. D. 92, 4 Ann. Cas. 296; contra, where there is power to change the decree for payments; Mayer v. Mayer, 154 Mich. 386, 117 N. W. 890, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 245, 129 Am. St. Rep. 477. Generally speaking, when a decree is ren dered for alimony payable in instalments, the right to such instalments becomes abso lute and vested upon becoming due and is protected by the full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution, provided, that no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the instal ments. This general rule does not obtain
where, by the law of the state in which such judgment is rendered, the right to such fu ture alimony is discretionary with the court which made the decree, to such an extent that no absolute or vested right attaches to receive the instalments ordered to be paid; even although no application to annul or modify the decree in respect to alimony had been made prior to the instalments becoming due; Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. 682, 54 L. Ed. 905, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1008, 20 Ann. Cas. 1061.
Though an action on a decree for alimony rendered in one state may be maintained in another state if the amount payable is fixed and presently flue, yet a decree for alimony becoming due in the future and payable in instalments is not a final decree enforceable in another state, within the full faith and credit clause, until the court which rendered it fixes the specific amount due; Hunt v. Monroe, 32 Utah, 428, 91 Pac. 269, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 249; Israel v. Israel, 148 Fed. 576, 79 C. C. A. 32, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1168, 8 Ann. Cas. 697.
Although judgments are, by statute, liens on the defendant's real estate, a decree for alimony payable by instalments does not create a lien unless the record affirmatively shows that the court so intended; Scott v. Scott, 80 Kan. 489, 103 Pac. 1005, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 132, 133 Am. St. Rep. 217, 18 Ann. Cas. 564, and note. It is held that a decree for alimony in gross operates as a lien on the husband's lands; Holmes v. Holmes, 29 N. J. Eq. 9; Coffman v. Finney, 65 Ohio St. 61, 61 N. E. 155, 55 L. R. A. 794; so of a month ly allowance; Raymond v. Blancgrass, 36 Mont. 449, 93 Pac. 648, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 976 ; but it is held that in the absence of a statute there is no lien; Kerr v. Kerr, 216 Pa. 641, 66 Atl. 107, 9 Ann. Cas. 89 ; Swansea v. Swansen, 12 Neb. 210, 10 N. W. 713; Kurtz v. Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119 ; In re Lawton, 12 R. I. 210 ; Campbell v. Trosper, 108 Sy. 602, 57 S. W. 245. A New York decree di• recting the husband to mortgage his New Jersey lands to secure alimony will not be enforced in New Jersey; Bullock v. Bullock, 52 N. J. Eq. 561, 30 AU. 676, 27 L. R. A. 213, 46 Am. St. Rep. 528.
Alimony, suit money and counsel fees can not be allowed to the husband ; State v. Tem pleton, 18 N. D. 525, 123 N. W. 283, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 234; Hoagland v. Hoagland, 19 Utah 103, 57 Pac. 20. Some allowance was made in Casey v. Casey, 116 Ia. 655, 88 N. W. 937, and 5 Quebec Pr. Rep. 137, under peculiar circumstances.
For an outside agreement for support of wife, not made part of a decree, see Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U. S. 340, 23 Sup. Ct. 757, 47 L. Ed. 1084.
See notes in 34 L. It. A. 110, and 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 234.