
    William E. Sinn, App'lt, v. Cora S. Sinn, Resp't.
    
      (City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 22, 1893.)
    
    Divorce—Alimony.
    The action is one for the annulment of a marriage, involving the validity of two divorces and the laws of four states. Plaintiff is in receipt of an income of $20,000 and defendant has only her theatrical wardrobe and savings amounting to $2,81)0. Held, that an allowance of $750 to defendant for legal services was proper.
    Appeal from order awarding defendant $750 counsel fee.
    
      Thomas H. Troy, for app’lt; Robert H. Griffin, for resp’t.
   Van Wyck, J.

This is an appeal from an order awarding defendant $750 to defray her expenses for legal services in the defense of her wifehood against the assault of plaintiff. This action is brought to have the marriage in Ohio between the parties hereto adjudged null and void, on the ground that at that time she was the lawful wife of one Farlin, to whom she was wedded previously in Michigan. This plaintiff assails the validity of the divorce secured by her from Farlin in Illinois, for the reason that the summons was served by publication on him while he was a resident of some other state.

The defendant, in turn, attacks the validity of the diVbrce of Farlin’s first wife, to whom he was married in Michigan, secured by her in Wisconsin, because the summons was served .upon him by publication while he was a resident of some other state. This controversy involves at least three marriages, and the laws of at least four states, a most tangled marital complication growing out of the conflict in the law of marriage and divorce of the several states. The plaintiff is in receipt of an annual income of about $20,000 and has $21,000 cash in bank. Notwithstanding this great plenty of wordly goods, he insists that she must forego the defense of her right to be called his wile, denied by him, or sell her jewelry and stage wardrobe, the necessary paraphernalia.of an actress of her admitted standing, or the furniture in her hired home, which he bids for in his affidavit, or use" her capital of $2,800 in bank, the net savings of a long professional career commencing at the age of fifteen, and from which she derives the munificent annual income of $120, which is totally inadequate for her support, and her principal must rapidly dwindle away. For several reasons, including the disturbing effects of this litigation, she has been unable for the last year to obtain employment at her usual work. We think the allowance of $750 was proper, both in law and amount, to enable her to procure the services of those learned in the law, so much required for the unraveling of this complexity of connubial rights. O'Dea v. O'Dea, 31 Hun, 441; affirmed 95 N. Y., 667; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 7 Robertson, 474; Douglas v. Douglas, 13 Abb., N. S., 291; Merritt v. Merritt, 99 N. Y., 643.

Order must be affirmed, with costs.

Clement, Ch. J., concurs.  