Florence Audubon v. Robert Shufeldt
| Decision Date | 20 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | No. 217,217 |
| Parties | FLORENCE AUDUBON and John W. Hulse, Assignee of William H. Smith, Appts ., v. ROBERT W. SHUFELDT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Henry Randall Webb for appellants.
Mr. John T. Deweese for appellee.
This was an appeal from an order of the supreme court of the District of Columbia sitting in bankuptcy, granting a discharge to Robert W. Shufeldt.
Shufeldt had been adjudged a bankrupt April 5, 1899, on his petition alleging that he was indebted to the amount of $4,538.33, and had no assets which were not exempt under the bankrupt act of 1898. The debts from which he sought release were as follows:
Secured debt to Washington National
Banking and Loan Association...............$3200 00
Unsecured debts as follows
Florence Audubon........................... $800 00
William H. Smith............................ 150 00
Lewis J. Yeager............................. 150 00
Sundry small debts.......................... 238 33
----------
1338 33
----------
$4538 33
Shufeldt was and had been for several years before filing his petition in bankruptcy, a surgeon with the rank of captain in the United States army, on the retired list, and was in receipt of a salary of $175 a month, his pay as such retired officer.
The debt of $3,200 was the debt of himself and his wife, secured on land in Takoma Park, Montgomery county, Maryland, conveyed by him to his wife in March, 1898, without consideration.
The debt of $800 represented arrears of alimony, granted to his former wife, Florence Audubon, on February 25, 1898, by a decree of the circuit court of Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland, in a cause of divorce, directing him to pay alimony to her at the rate of $50 a month, beginning April 1, 1898. No part of that alimony has been paid.
About March 1, 1898, Shufeldt left Montgomery county, and took up his residence in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. A suit in equity has been instituted and is still pending in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, to enforce the aforesaid decree for alimony, and to make him pay the alimony in arrear.
The debt of $150 to William H. Smith was a promissory note given for taking testimony in the divorce suit under a commission from the Maryland court, and was duly assigned to John W. Hulse before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
The debt of $150 to Lewis J. Yeager was for professional services rendered in the District of Columbia, in the equity suit aforesaid.
The small debts for $238.33 were contracted for supplies furnished to Shufeldt and his family before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.
After the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, Florence Audubon filed in court her claim for $800, being the arrears of alimony, describing it as 'a debt' due by him to her; and voted thereon at the meeting of creditors for the election of a trustee. She afterwards filed a memorandum directing the withdrawal of her claim; but no order of the court to that effect was passed.
It was objected that the claim for alimony was not a provable debt under the bankrupt act, and should be excepted from the list of debts for which a discharge in bankruptcy might be granted. The court overruled the objection, and granted the discharge, being of opinion that the arrears of alimony which had accrued against the bankrupt up to the time of the adjudication in bankruptcy constituted a provable debt, in the sense of the bankrupt act of 1898; but that the discharge could not affect any instalments accruing since that adjudication. Florence Audubon appealed to this court.
By § 4 of the bankrupt act of July 1, 1898, chap. 541, 'any person who owes debts, except a corporation, shall be entitled to the benefits of this act as a voluntary bankrupt.' 30 Stat. at L. 547. An officer in the army falls within this description; and it may be that he is not bound to include his in his schedule. Flarty v. Odlum (1790) 3 T. R. 682; Apthorpe v. Apthorpe (1887) L. R. 12 Prob. Div. 192. Our bankrupt act contains no such provision as the English bankruptcy act 1883, authorizing the court, when the bankrupt is an officer in the army or navy, or employed in the civil service, to order a portion of his pay to be applied for the benefit of his creditors in bankruptcy. Re Ward [1897] 1 Q. B. 266. But the question now before us is not whether his pay can be reached in bankruptcy, but whether he is entitled to a discharge from the arrears of alimony due to his former wife.
The bankrupt act of 1898 provides in § 1 that a 'discharge' means 'the release of a bankrupt from all of his debts which are provable in bankruptcy, except such as are excepted by this act;' and includes, in § 63, among the debts which may be proved against his estate, 'a fixed liability, as evidenced by a judgment or an instrument in writing, absolutely owing' at the time of the petition in bankruptcy, whether then payable or not, and debts 'founded upon a contract, expressed or implied.' 30 Stat. at L. 544, 563, chap. 541.
Alimony does not arise from any business transaction, but from the relation of marriage. It is not founded on contract, express or implied, but on the natural and legal duty of the husband to support the wife. The general obligation to support is made specific by the decree of the court of appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, alimony may be altered by that court at any time, as the circumstances of the parties may require. The decree of a court of one state, indeed, for the present payment of a definite sum of money as alimony, is a record which is entitled to full faith and credit in another state and may therefore be there enforced by suit. Barber v. Barber (1858) 21 How. 582, 16 L. ed. 226; Lynde v. Lynde (1901) 181 U. S. 183, ante, 555, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 555. But its obligation in that respect does not affect its nature. In other respects, alimony cannot ordinarily be enforced by action at law, but only by application to the court which granted it, and subject to the discretion of that court. Permanent alimony is regarded rather as a portion of the husband's estate to which the wife is equitably entitled, than as strictly a debt; alimony from time to time may be regarded as a portion of his current income or earnings; and the considerations which affect either can be better weighed by the court having jurisdiction over the relation of husband and wife than by a court of a different jurisdiction.
In the state of Maryland and in the District of Columbia alimony is granted by decree of a court of equity. Wallingsford v. Wallingsford (1825) 6 Harr. & J. 485; Crane v. Meginnis (1829) 1 Gill & J. 463, 19 Am. Dec. 237; Jamison v. Jamison (1847) 4 Md....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hart
...a provable debt in bankruptcy. Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390 (1904); Audubon v. Shufeldt, supra 181 U.S. 575 at n. 8, 21 S.Ct. 735 at n. 8 45 L.Ed. 1009 (1901); Turner v. Turner, 108 F. 785 (D.Ind. 1901). Wetmore also noted that the 1903 act merely restated exis......
-
Winkel v. Winkel, s. 8-13.
...pars. 150, 151, pp. 96, 97. See Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 71-73, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390, 2 Ann.Cas. 265. In Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575, at page 578, 21 S.Ct. 735, at page 736, 45 L. Ed. 1009, Justice Gray, delivering the opinion, wrote: "And, as the court of appeals of the ......
-
Kephart v. Kephart
...to even change the amount to be paid by the husband, where he is in arrears in payments required under the decree." 181 U.S. 575, 579-580, 21 S.Ct. 735, 737, 45 L.Ed. 1009; see also Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 73, 25 S.Ct. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390. These were cases in which the Supreme Court h......
-
Schooley v. Schooley
...Sup. Ct. 172, 49 L. Ed. 390, 2 Ann. Cas. 265;Barclay v. Barclay, 184 Ill. 375, 56 N. E. 636, 51 L. R. A. 351;Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, 21 Sup. Ct. 736, 45 L. Ed. 1009.Andrew v. Andrew, 62 Vt. 495, 20 Atl. 819. In the Audubon Case, the Supreme Court of the United States approves Al......
-
Reconstructing the Bankruptcy Power: An Originalist Approach.
...amend. XIII, [section] 1. (250.) See supra note 175 and accompanying text. (251.) Wetmore, 196 U.S. at 73 (quoting Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U.S. 575, 577 (1901)). Notably, the Kras Court took the noncontractual nature of marriage to be evidence for an important difference between marriage a......