Prince v. Prince

Plaintiff

Sarah Prince

Defendant

George Prince

Plaintiff's Claim

That she should be provided alimony and child support after her husband deserted her, even when he had no property or fixed or permanent income.

Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff

Elliott

Chief Defense Lawyers

Magrath, Yeadon

Judges

Benjamin Faneuil Dunkin, Johnson

Place

Charleston, South Carolina

Date of Decision

March 1845

Decision

A husband, when he has the income, is responsible for alimony and child support.

Significance

South Carolina took a fresh look at the idea of support for a deserted wife, deciding that a husband who had the means of supporting his wife, even though he had no visible property or fixed and permanent income, should be responsible for alimony and the support of the couple's children.

Related Cases

• In the Matter of Bolling, 56 A.D.2d 722 (1977).
• In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App. 4th 1410 (1998).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.

Further Readings

• Hoffer, Peter Charles. Law and People in Colonial America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
• Wortman, Marlene Stein. Women in American Law, Vol. I. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1985.