*1 an oral hah has failed to prove was hers was his. He what the any joint operation contract providing agreement. to the execution of the partnership July May 3,
[No. 1951.] 31714. En Banc. Ruth Stibbs, Anne v. Gerald D. Respondent,
Relator.1 1Reported *2 Soderland, & Kennett,
John J. Kennett and McCutcheon for relator. Mary Dailey, Rupp Schweppe, and McMicken,
Grace O. & Krug, respondent. Ellen for brought against respondent an J. The action Mallery, granting separate
the relator for maintenance. Our respondent may trial, a new be found Stibbs v. (2d) Thereafter, and before 377, 37 223 P. Wn. respondent Rem. trial under the new moved the Supp. § 1949, 997-9, for an court made of thousand dollars. The
the amount two fifty The relator asks dollars. award of twelve hundred the order aside. us to set specifically provides for suit
The statute mention and annulment without for divorce actions separate maintenance. of the action for among things: provides, § other 997-9, “Pending . . make . . . . the Court an action expenses actions, in- the of such relative to such orders cluding attorneys’ insure to the fees, as will efficient wife impartial trial thereof. a fair and her case and ” ours.) (Italics . money pending right action to suit independent the statute, as is separate maintenance is Superior Young Court, ex rel. itself. State action rights are that the now hold 436. We 72, 147 Pac. Wash. upon sources, though different analogous, based even so main right in an action to suit that the Supp. 1949, provisions Rem. governed the tenance interpreting it. the decisions 997-9, and the parties and divided their home April, sold 1948,the In except commission which money equally, real-estate cash for dollars thousand to six paid. amounted This relator being gradually respondent. reduced This amount was by living expenses up September, 1950, when time position at an annual took a as school teacher original salary thousand dollars. Of the six thousand two twenty- something in there now remains excess of dollars Respondent has not that she five hundred dollars. shown salary. cannot on her The relator does not contend live that he is unable to
Until we find that there should be we are obviously and need not not concerned with its amount dis- question. on that citations and the contentions cuss reasonably necessary expenses incurred or All during pendency action, be incurred those appeal, may superior be State Paul, ex rel. Turner v. “pending” disposition. until its final 31 Words and (Perm, ed.) Nelson, Nelson v.
Phrases *3 (2d) 982; Pac. Rust, see Crooks v. pauperize It has been held that a wife need not her outlay necessary selling self her to make the cash assets litigation. Dietrich, Dietrich v. S. W. App. The Heck, Heck v. spending put wife is not to the election of her Armstrong living expenses preparation case, of her or Armstrong, Dietrich, 518, 194 640; Dietrich v. 185 C. S. E. S. supra, she has entitled an award when but she not to such ample case, she is not called funds for both. In the instant already get cash. She on to sell the roof over her head to of need amount in of her own estimate excess it purposes. for both adjust temporary an award is in no sense a
Such rights. purpose property effectively ment Its sole day the court afford the wife her court. While must be probable litigation in concerned with the cost of the mak ing speculation permit it should not as to the of the action to affect it. Such a consideration must merits judgment final abide the which it can be for. 997-9. purpose of the statute is not to excuse the wife from spending money, provide her own but to for the efficient presentation of her case when is unable do so from she hardship. her own resources without a has not made entitles her to an of suit award
The order is reversed. concur. Robinson, Hill, Donworth, Finley, (dissenting) the conclusion Schwellenbach, —After hearing the trial court found: “The here moves to her allowance to be paid by the defendant to trial. background “The of this situation is revealed in 37 Wn. (2d) 377, it where is said: support ‘The wealth of detail in alibi, which was convincing compatible so inadvertence or to the trial is not with mere
faulty memory, supports but, rather, inference of fabrication.’ description perjury, “This amounts to of willful be assumed counsel for the that a re- require expense preparation.
trial will both and detailed long plain- “The clear in law has been this state that the tiff in this form of is entitled aid language chapter and the 215 of change the Session Laws 1949 does not stand- designed permit rule. Section 12 of the the court to only statute new was maintenance in cases where sought pleadings. a divorce or annulment was in the power Heretofore the court was without to do this. gainfully “It is a fact this is not insolvent. She is employed cash as record received certain and the shows she together judg- the result of a sale with a probably equal more than ment for costs. This latter will *4 appeal, apparently necessary by per- the costs of an made jury, which is act of the defendant. policy require a wife to finance not the of the law to “It is
litigation the record under the circumstances shown here. record, that
“I on the entire this am of pendente lite, contribute a reasonable should defendant reveal the actual that this amount to the end the aid of counsel. facts the court with opinion “I am of the $1,250.00 the sum of should day enable this woman to have her in court.” thereupon following court made the order: being fully premises . and the court advised appearing the sum of Thousand One Fifty ($1250.00) Two Hundred Dollars a reasonable sum attorneys’ to be awarded to the for suit and having February fees lite, and the court announced its deci- sion in a letter to counsel 5, 1951; dated “Now Therefore, defendant, Gerald D. Is Hereby pay forthwith to the or to her Ordered attorneys of record the sum of One Thousand Hundred Two Fifty ($1250.00) attorneys’ Dollars as and fees suit pendente lite.” complete hearing,
After a full and the trial court con- cluded that a sufficient was made to warrant requiring order relator to the sum of $1,250.00 as day
in order to enable her to have her It authority, been the law, and needs citation of that such allowances are within the discretion of the trial court and they will not be disturbed for a manifest abuse nothing discretion. We find in the record which would holding by warrant this court that the trial court abused entering its discretion such order. Grady
Beals, Hamley, concur with Schwellen- bach,
August