Crane v. Crane, 17.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1942
• Docket Number: No. 17.,17.
• Citation: 170 S.W.2d 663
• Parties: CRANE v. CRANE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

170 S.W.2d 663

CRANE v. CRANE.

No. 17.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

November 27, 1942.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court January 30, 1943.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Fred B. Ballard, Judge.

Action by Katherine Crane, a minor, by Mrs. Jennie Rose Crane as next friend, against Erb H. Crane, instituted before a justice of the peace to recover payments due for plaintiff's support by defendant under a divorce decree and orders pursuant thereto obtained by plaintiff's mother against defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals in error.

Reversed and suit dismissed.

W. R. Tillett, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Cantrell, Meacham & Moon, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.

HALE, Judge.

The question in this case is the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace in an action brought on a decree entered in a divorce case requiring a father to make certain contributions for the support of his minor child.

In Chancery at Chattanooga, Mrs. Jennie Rose Crane obtained a divorce from Erb H. Crane and was awarded the custody of their disabled daughter Katherine now nineteen years of age, and the father was directed to make certain monthly payments for the support of the child until further orders of the court and the cause was retained in court for the enforcement of the decree. This was on March 18, 1938. Later, a petition for contempt was filed, which resulted in an adjudication that the father pay $20 per month for five months and $15 per month thereafter until further orders of the court and the cause was retained in court "for the enforcement of this and other decrees if necessary". This was on November 20, 1939. Payments were in default for six months during the latter part of 1941 and the early part of 1942. The present action was brought in the name of the minor by her mother as next friend before a Justice of the Peace, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal, the learned Circuit Judge first held he had no jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was granted, and the case then heard and judgment rendered for $90. An appeal in the nature of a writ of error was prayed, granted and perfected.

Errors are assigned, questioning the jurisdiction of the court below.

It seems to be agreed that a minor child would have no right of action unless conferred by the decree in question. Baker v. Baker, 169 Tenn. 589, 5 Beeler 589, 89 S.W.2d 763. It is argued that, so far as past-due installments are involved, the decree of the Chancery Court was final and it constitutes a debt for which an action would lie before a Justice of the Peace. There is cited the case of Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 682, 54 L.Ed. 905, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 1068, 20 Ann.Cas. 1061. This was an action brought in Connecticut to recover on alimony granted by a New York court. The Supreme Court held that, under the New York statute, there could be no modification of the judgment so far as past-due and unpaid installments were concerned, and that, under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, art. 4, § 1, the wife should have been granted a judgment for the delinquent installments. It will be noted that this case involved alimony, not contributions for the support of a minor child.

In an opinion rendered November 23, 1940 our Supreme Court said:

"Where the divorce decree awarding the custody of the child to the mother provides that the father shall contribute to its maintenance, it is logically held that such a decree relates merely to the relative rights and duties of the parents toward each other. Since the child is not a party to such suit, the child's rights as against the father are not affected. Connett v. Connett, 81...