Same Streets
← All stories

The First Suit for Alimony Without Divorce in Washington

A husband leaves his wife and moves in with his son, but a judge intervenes to ensure the abandoned spouse retains the little property they had.

The story, cleaned up

A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.

Judge Lichtenberg was occupied yesterday afternoon in hearing the suit for alimony of Eunice V. Calkins vs. David M. Calkins, which is probably the first case of the kind ever tried in the state of Washington. The plaintiff did not ask for divorce, but wanted a share of the real and personal property acquired by her husband. Her complaint alleged that her husband was capable of earning good wages as a carpenter and asked for $20 alimony a month. Calkins is a very old man, and it is said that the present Mrs. Calkins is his seventh wife. They were married at Port Townsend in June, 1891. Some time since, it is claimed, that while the plaintiff was away from home her husband removed their furniture from the house where they lived in East Seattle and went to live with his son. From the evidence it appeared that he is not able to work on account of his age and the fact that he has lost the use of one of his eyes through an accident. After hearing the testimony, Judge Lichtenberg awarded the wife one of two lots owned by the husband, both of which are valued at $500, and also the household furniture, which is worth but a few dollars.

“The plaintiff did not ask for divorce, but wanted a share of the real and personal property acquired by her husband.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892
Then · 1892134 years apartNow · 2026

This rare 1892 case highlights the legal precariousness of married women’s property rights before no-fault divorce laws. Today, alimony and equitable distribution are standard, but this case remains a significant early example of a woman asserting her financial independence while still legally married.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-05-14. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, MAY 14, 1892, Page 5
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60323, -122.33028 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗