Eisenring

Prohibition. In an action for divorce brought by Charles Eisenring against his wife, petitioner herein, the court, upon application therefor by the husband, made an order requiring the wife, at a time specified therein, to pay the husband suit money and alimony pendente Ute. She refused to comply with the order; whereupon she was cited to appear and show cause why she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt.

The contention of petitioner is that this order is void, and hence the court had no jurisdiction to proceed against her as for contempt for failure to comply therewith. We are in full accord with this contention.

Coneededly authority to make such order finds no support at common law; hence, if authority therefor exists, it must be by virtue of some statutory provision. Section 137 of the Civil Code provides that “when an action for divorce is pending, the court may, in its discretion, require the husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife to support herself and her children, or to prosecute or defend the action.” Clearly the power of the court under this provision is restricted in the exercise thereof to the wife, and no similar provision is made in…