McGuire v. McGuire
Supreme Court of Nebraska
59 N.W.2d 336 (1953)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Lydia McGuire (plaintiff), after being widowed with two daughters, married Charles McGuire (defendant) in 1919. Mrs. McGuire knew when she married Mr. McGuire that he was an extremely frugal man. She came to the marriage in possession of 80 acres of land from which she collected rent that she kept as her own. During the marriage, Mr. McGuire rarely gave Mrs. McGuire any money. She purchased groceries and items for herself by selling poultry and eggs. Mr. McGuire contributed to furnishing the house very simply. It was equipped with electricity and a stove but not with a bathroom. Together, the couple helped to fund the education of Mrs. McGuire’s daughters, both of whom eventually married. In her old age, Mrs. McGuire lost the ability to make money through raising chickens. Mr. McGuire paid for three surgeries that Mrs. McGuire required, but he would not pay for new household furnishings or other items that Mrs. McGuire believed they needed. His financial assets were fairly substantial, but he refused to disclose them to Mrs. McGuire. Without filing for separation or divorce, Mrs. McGuire sued her husband for support and maintenance. The trial court ruled in her favor, and Mr. McGuire appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Messmore, J.)
Dissent (Yeager, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
