
    Mary Denton against S. Denton.
    Feb. 23d.
    Where a wife had filed a bill for alimony, &c. against her husband, and it appeared that he had abandoned her without any support, and threatened to leave the state, the court, on the petition of the wife, granted a writ of rae exeat república, against the husband.
    Pending a bill for a divorce by a wife against her husband, and before answer, the court will allow a monthly sum to the wife as alimony, and also a sum to be paid to her, by her husband, towards defiaying the expenses of her suit.
    THE petition of the plaintiff stated, that, in January last, she filed her bill against the defendant, setting forth that she was married to the defendant on the 25th of October, 1795, in this state, and that they were then, and still are, citizens and residents of this state. That, on the 20th of April, 1814, the defendant broke up housekeeping, though, for years before, his annual expenses for housekeeping were between 4 and 5,000 dollars. That the defendant abandoned the plaintiff without home or support, and had since treated her with great cruelty and persecution, and denied her all support: that she had no means of living: that the defendant was a man of large fortune, and threatened to leave the United States. And she prayed a writ of ne exeat, and a writ of supplicavit, to restrain the defendant from disturbing her retreat, and for security, and for money to prosecute the suit, and also for a weekly or monthly allowance. The bill for a divorce was filed, but no answer was yet put in.
    The facts stated in the petition were supported by affidavits, from which it also appeared that the defendant was a man of fortune, and worth above 200,000 dollars.
    
      T. Sedgwick, for the petitioner,
    cited 2 Burns’ Ecc. Law, 432. Gibson's Codex. 445. 1 Oughton Ordo Jud. 306. 309. Ambler, 63. Sid. 118. 2 Atk. 210.
   The Chancellor.

The bill filed in this cause states matter properly cognizable in equity. It is as well for alimony as for other relief. The allowance of a ne exeat, when the husband threatens to leave the state, and his wife without any support, is essential to justice, and has been granted in like cases. (2 Atk. 210. Amb. 76. Dickens, 154.) From what was said in the case of Mix v. Mix, as well as from the cases now cited, the rule appears to be, that the wife who is under the necessity of carrying on a suit against her husband, or of defending one against him, is entitled, as well to a reasonable allowance to be paid by the husband for the necessary expenses of the suit, as to an allowance for alimony pending the prosecution.

I shall, accordingly, allow the ne exeat, and direct security under it to be taken, in the sum of 25,000 dollars, and shall, also, allow at the rate of 100 dollars per month, for alimony, and the further sum of250 dollars, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, or to the register, or assistant register, on her behalf, towards defraying the necessary charges of the suit, on herParL 
      
       Ante, p. 109.
     