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 thoughhe had no visible property or fixed and permanent income, should be responsible for alimony and the support of the couple's children.
A Step Up
Colonial marriages were easy to make but hard to end. A man and woman could marry by simply agreeing to live together. Even couples who preferred a religious ceremony did not need to follow formal procedures. However, different colonies granted divorce either rarely or not at all. New Englanders were granted divorce for adultery, cruelty, and desertion. However, divorce with the right to remarry was illegal throughout the South. Legal separations took theirplace--without the right to remarry. South Carolina was particularly rigid, refusing to grant divorces even for a husband's adultery. To allow a woman theright to divorce her husband for his extramarital affairs insulted her husband's honor.
Prince v. Prince was a step forward for wives in the state. It set a precedent for helping wives financially when husbands abandoned them. Earlierlaw required husbands to support their estranged wives, but only if the men owned property from which to pay.
An Informal Marriage
Sarah and George Prince were married in 1834. The ceremony took place in Portsmouth, England, on 2 March 1835, in the Jewish faith. A simple certificate confirmed the union. Within the year, the couple had a son. Shortly after thebaby's birth, George began mistreating Sarah, finally abandoning her for America. There he began living with another woman. As an apothecary, a dealer inbotanical medicines, George made from $15 to $20 each day. He lived in comfort, yet he did not contribute any money to his family, and left Sarah to support their son alone.
So Sarah followed him to South Carolina. There she asked the court for alimony, not only for herself, but for her son as well. The case came to trial in Charleston in January of 1841. George's attorney claimed that his client was poor, possessing no property from which to pay alimony. George denied that hehad ever married Sarah, claiming the child was not his. He produced witnesseswho said that under Hebrew law, the certificate signed by the couple was fora betrothal only. Sarah's side called witnesses who established the couple had lived together in marriage. Some had carried money from George to Sarah for her bed and board during the early days of their separation.
After listening to testimony about whether the Princes had a real marriage ornot under Jewish law, the court decided that a ceremony had taken place. Themarriage was valid, though informal. George had indeed deserted Sarah.
The only question remaining was whether George had the money to pay support.Since he was self-employed, he appeared to have no permanent or fixed incomeand no real property. The court commented, "If the condition in life of the parties is such that neither had property, and they were both to labor for subsistence, it is very questionable whether a case for alimony is presented."
The Court Investigates
Chancellors Dunkin and Johnson then appointed a court assistant ("Master") toinvestigate George's finances. The Master completed his investigation in 1844 and the case came before the court. The report read:
Then the court reviewed the evidence showing George lived the good life:
The court reasoned George's income might be $1,800 a year. As to whether he was bound to contribute to the support of the wife he had deserted, the courtwrote:
George had to pay Sarah alimony and the court told the Master to hear evidence on whether the child was George's or not and, if so, to order that George pay for his education and support as well. George lost his appeal of the decision.
Before this trial, husbands had paid alimony out of the livings they made from their property. Prince v. Prince granted alimony out of the husband's income, protecting more women. The empathy shown by the court eventually led to more liberal divorce laws in America. Even South Carolina developed rules to provide for a wife's support when the marriage was irretrievable. This reflected a broader change ushered in by Jacksonian democracy, which extendedto greater numbers of people the same rights that had formerly been enjoyed by a privileged few.
Related Cases
Prenuptial Agreements
Popularly known as prenuptial agreements or "prenups", in legal circles theyare known as premarital agreements. Whatever the name, these are contracts between two people made prior to marriage, with the idea in mind that the unioncould end in divorce. Prenuptials, which provide for the distribution of property and other interests in the event of a marital breakup, are the only form of contract to address issues such as child custody.
Though the concept of prenuptials may seem modern, they in fact have a long history. Among Jews since the time of Christ, there has been a form of premarital contract called a ketubah, whose purpose has been generally to protect the property of the prospective bride. This was also the case in Englishcommon-law prenuptial agreements of the 1500s, which became the model for the modern American version. Because women had an inferior status in society, and were placed at an economic disadvantage with regard to their prospective husbands, a prenuptial was considered essential to protect the rights of a wealthy woman.
Every U.S. state has laws governing prenuptial agreements. Most of these arebased on the model Uniform Premarital Agreement Act developed by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
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 thoughhe had no visible property or fixed and permanent income, should be responsible for alimony and the support of the couple's children.
A Step Up
Colonial marriages were easy to make but hard to end. A man and woman could marry by simply agreeing to live together. Even couples who preferred a religious ceremony did not need to follow formal procedures. However, different colonies granted divorce either rarely or not at all. New Englanders were granted divorce for adultery, cruelty, and desertion. However, divorce with the right to remarry was illegal throughout the South. Legal separations took theirplace--without the right to remarry. South Carolina was particularly rigid, refusing to grant divorces even for a husband's adultery. To allow a woman theright to divorce her husband for his extramarital affairs insulted her husband's honor.
Prince v. Prince was a step forward for wives in the state. It set a precedent for helping wives financially when husbands abandoned them. Earlierlaw required husbands to support their estranged wives, but only if the men owned property from which to pay.
An Informal Marriage
Sarah and George Prince were married in 1834. The ceremony took place in Portsmouth, England, on 2 March 1835, in the Jewish faith. A simple certificate confirmed the union. Within the year, the couple had a son. Shortly after thebaby's birth, George began mistreating Sarah, finally abandoning her for America. There he began living with another woman. As an apothecary, a dealer inbotanical medicines, George made from $15 to $20 each day. He lived in comfort, yet he did not contribute any money to his family, and left Sarah to support their son alone.
So Sarah followed him to South Carolina. There she asked the court for alimony, not only for herself, but for her son as well. The case came to trial in Charleston in January of 1841. George's attorney claimed that his client was poor, possessing no property from which to pay alimony. George denied that hehad ever married Sarah, claiming the child was not his. He produced witnesseswho said that under Hebrew law, the certificate signed by the couple was fora betrothal only. Sarah's side called witnesses who established the couple had lived together in marriage. Some had carried money from George to Sarah for her bed and board during the early days of their separation.
After listening to testimony about whether the Princes had a real marriage ornot under Jewish law, the court decided that a ceremony had taken place. Themarriage was valid, though informal. George had indeed deserted Sarah.
The only question remaining was whether George had the money to pay support.Since he was self-employed, he appeared to have no permanent or fixed incomeand no real property. The court commented, "If the condition in life of the parties is such that neither had property, and they were both to labor for subsistence, it is very questionable whether a case for alimony is presented."
The Court Investigates
Chancellors Dunkin and Johnson then appointed a court assistant ("Master") toinvestigate George's finances. The Master completed his investigation in 1844 and the case came before the court. The report read:
The Masterdoes not find any proof that the defendant is in possession of any estate, either real or personal; but from the testimony submitted, he finds that he isin the receipt of money; that he lives comfortably and well; and that in theMaster's own mind there is little doubt that he is in possession of funds sufficient to meet any decree that may be awarded against him.
Then the court reviewed the evidence showing George lived the good life:
The evidence reported shows the existence of considerable income . .. It appears that the defendant has been in the habit of taking boarders; that he vends medicines, and occasionally administers them; that he lives in a hired house, for which he regularly pays considerable rent; and that he supports a woman who lives with him.
The court reasoned George's income might be $1,800 a year. As to whether he was bound to contribute to the support of the wife he had deserted, the courtwrote:
By marriage the husband becomes entitled to whatever [property] the wife may possess, and to all her earnings. She is reduced to a state of comparative servitude. She cannot change her situation by another marriage, more agreeable or more beneficial to her. She is deprived of the power ofmaking contracts; and, of course, of the means of accumulating property, orlaying by the means of subsistence in sickness or old age. Will it do to saythat the husband, entitling himself to all these advantages, and subjecting the wife to all these disabilities, by the marriage, is not bound, by all themeans in his power, to sustain her? And if he deserts her, shall his desertion, which is, itself, a wrong, excuse him from the performance of this obligation? Certainly not. It would be a reproach to the law if this were so. God knows, the condition of all women, but especially of married women, is bad enough by the common law of England, and advancing civilization loudly demands its amelioration. But that law, which almost enslaves the wife, makes the husband liable for her support. It is a duty he has undertaken, with her aid, if he chooses to avail himself of it; and for which he is bound, if he rejects that assistance.
George had to pay Sarah alimony and the court told the Master to hear evidence on whether the child was George's or not and, if so, to order that George pay for his education and support as well. George lost his appeal of the decision.
Before this trial, husbands had paid alimony out of the livings they made from their property. Prince v. Prince granted alimony out of the husband's income, protecting more women. The empathy shown by the court eventually led to more liberal divorce laws in America. Even South Carolina developed rules to provide for a wife's support when the marriage was irretrievable. This reflected a broader change ushered in by Jacksonian democracy, which extendedto greater numbers of people the same rights that had formerly been enjoyed by a privileged few.
Related Cases
- In the Matter of Bolling, 56 A.D.2d 722 (1977).
- In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal.App. 4th 1410 (1998).
Prenuptial Agreements
Popularly known as prenuptial agreements or "prenups", in legal circles theyare known as premarital agreements. Whatever the name, these are contracts between two people made prior to marriage, with the idea in mind that the unioncould end in divorce. Prenuptials, which provide for the distribution of property and other interests in the event of a marital breakup, are the only form of contract to address issues such as child custody.
Though the concept of prenuptials may seem modern, they in fact have a long history. Among Jews since the time of Christ, there has been a form of premarital contract called a ketubah, whose purpose has been generally to protect the property of the prospective bride. This was also the case in Englishcommon-law prenuptial agreements of the 1500s, which became the model for the modern American version. Because women had an inferior status in society, and were placed at an economic disadvantage with regard to their prospective husbands, a prenuptial was considered essential to protect the rights of a wealthy woman.
Every U.S. state has laws governing prenuptial agreements. Most of these arebased on the model Uniform Premarital Agreement Act developed by the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
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.
User Comments Add a comment…