Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/47

31 DEFECTIVE ALIMONY DECREES, 3l judgment for money in a damage suit. In the divorce suit the wife claims that she is damaged, as it were, by the enforced loss of her husband's support, through his fault, to the extent of the support the husband could or should give her, did she remain a wife. These are her damages and her ahmony. Where no dam- ages are alleged, where is the court that has jurisdiction to grant any?i The decision of Crocket v, Lee i^supra^ p. 26, note) was followed years after by a much-quoted and all-important case, in which the supreme tribunal of the nation lays down the following prin- ciples : ^ — " It is an essential ingredient in every case that there should be proper judicial proceedings upon which to found the decree; that is, that there should be certain written allegations, or statements of the charge for which the seizure is made, and upon which the forfeiture " [of the hus- band's property] " is sought to be enforced. If condemnation is made without any specific cause of forfeiture " [the specified amount of financial loss incurred by the wife because of her enforced divorce from a wealthy husband], "the sentence is not so much a judicial sentence as an arbitrary sovereign edict. P. 281. "Such sentences are mere mockeries, in no just sense ju- dicial findings ; they ought to be condemned both ex directo and col- laterally^ as mere arbitrary edicts and substantial frauds. P. 282. " Though the court may possess jurisdiction of a cause, of the subject-matter, and of the parties, it is still limited in the extent ... of its judgments " (which cannot extend beyond the limit of the allegations of damages or alimony named by the wife). P. 283. ''A departure from established modes of procedure will often render the judgment void. The decree of a court upon oral allegations, without written pleadings (if that on which the deci'ee is based), would be an idle act, of no force beyond that of an advisory proceeding of the Chancellor." Is the respondent entitled to no notice of the extent to which he may be entitled — no notice of the outside limit of the damages charged upon him — until the decree is an accomplished fact? ^ 1 Velvin v. Hall, 78 Ga. 139: " It is the amount of damages laid in the declaration that fixes the jurisdiction." 2 Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. p. 280. that the court erred in awarding alimony to Mrs. Howe. In a proper case the court would have snchpower. Here, no such issue was presented. The pleadings say nothing ■
 * Howe V. Howe, 4 Rev. 469. Divorce Appeal from alimony. Held : " It is claimed