In Cunningham v. Cunningham, 5 W.L.R. 514 the application for interim alimony was refused because it was shown that the plaintiff was practically living in adultery with another man and was being supported by him, and had therefore means of support independent of her husband. In Pherrill v. Pherrill, 6 O.L.R. 642, the application was refused because it was shown that the husband had practically no property at all and there was no evidence as to his earning power,. In Smith v. Smith, 6 P.R. 51 it was held that if the defendant oppose the application on the ground that the plaintiff has “ample” means of support unless she can show the contrary to be the case her application will be refused.
In the case before me it is alleged that the plaintiff has separate property, but there is no satisfactory evidence that she is deriving any income from it, much less the “ample” means of support mentioned iii Smith v. Smith, supra,
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.