Bates v. Bates, 8579-8581
Decision Date | 27 March 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 8604.,No. 8579-8581,8579-8581,8604. |
Citation | 141 F.2d 723,79 US App. DC 14 |
Parties | BATES v. BATES et al. SAME v. COLPOYS, Marshal. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Arthur J. Hilland, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Jean M. Boardman, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Dorothy Bates.
Messrs. Edward M. Curran, U. S. Atty. (John L. Ingoldsby and Charles B. Murray, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee Colpoys.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
Appellee Dorothy N. Bates filed a complaint for maintenance against her husband, appellant Harrison Bates. She charged that his cruelty had compelled her to leave him and that he had refused to support her. She asked for maintenance pendente lite. She did not ask for divorce, either absolute or limited. The court, upon the pleadings and depositions, ordered appellant to pay $500 forthwith, $150 a month pendente lite, and $308.80 suit money. He failed to do so and was committed for contempt. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus which was discharged. He appealed (Nos. 8579, 8580) from the award of maintenance pendente lite and suit money, (No. 8581) from the order imprisoning him for contempt, and (No. 8604) from the order discharging his writ of habeas corpus. He gave bond for the satisfaction of the contempt judgment and was released from custody. He is now in Florida.
The District Code authorizes suits for maintenance.1 It does not expressly authorize awards of maintenance and suit money pendente lite, but those awards were within the District Court's discretion under its general equity powers.2
However, the District Code provides that where a decree directs only the payment of money, "no defendant shall be imprisoned except in those cases especially provided for."3 The court has "no power" to overstep that limitation.4 Imprisonment is "especially provided" for enforcement of permanent maintenance,5 and also for enforcement of alimony "during the pendency of a suit for divorce."6 But the orders in this case are not in either of those categories. Imprisonment is not "expressly provided" for enforcement of maintenance pendente lite. It is true that the code permits enforcement of interlocutory orders by the same process as final decrees.7 But an order requiring the payment of maintenance, even pendente lite, is a final and not an interlocutory order. It follows that the court had no power to imprison appellant.
8 The motion of appellee Colpoys to dismiss the appeal as moot is therefore denied.
Appellee Dorothy N. Bates will be allowed counsel fees of $250 on these appeals.
Nos. 8579, 8580, affirmed;
Nos. 8581, 8604, reversed.
2 Lesh v. Lesh, 21 App.D.C. 475; Pedersen v. Pedersen, 71 App.D.C. 26, 107 F. 2d 227; Howard v. Howard, 72 App.D. C. 145, 112 F.2d 44; Reed v. Reed, 52 App.D.C. 35, 280 F. 1009.
Local Rule 16(a) of the District Court, which provides that "Allowance by the court of compensation to an attorney, fiduciary or guardian ad litem shall be made only on written motion supported by a statement detailing with...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopson v. Hopson
...at page 219, 85 F.2d at page 718. 22 Franklin v. Franklin, 1948, 83 U.S. App.D.C. 385, 386, 171 F.2d 12, 13. In Bates v. Bates, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 15, 141 F.2d 723, 724, this court pointed out that although the District Code does not authorize awards of maintenance and suit money pen......
-
Scholla v. Scholla, 11267
...Court of the District of Columbia, predecessor to the present District Court, to make such allowances. See also Bates v. Bates, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 141 F.2d 723; Melvin v. Melvin, supra; Lesh v. Lesh, 1903, 21 App.D.C. The District Court also ruled that the claim of Mrs. Scholla for $......
-
Lundregan v. Lundregan
...itself, and if that judgment is invalid on its face as a basis for commitment then the commitment will not be sustained. Bates v. Bates, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 141 F.2d 723; Rapeer v. Colpoys, 66 App.D.C. 216, 85 F.2d 715. The rule that a decree of court, assuming a jurisdictional basis, must ......
-
Thomas v. Tansey
...of his challenged conviction. See Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). Nor is Bates v. Bates, 141 F.2d 723 (D.C.Cir.1944), cited by petitioner, in point. The husband in that case had not been purged of contempt and finally released from confinement at t......