In re Petition of Jones

• Decision Date: 16 October 1917
• Citation: 102 A. 81,30 Del. 1
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF JAMES P. JONES, TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

102 A. 81

30 Del. 1

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION OF JAMES P. JONES, TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

October 16, 1917

Superior Court, New Castle County, September Term, 1917.Rule, No. 461, May Term, 1916.

PETITION by James P. Jones for a rule to show cause why the judgment entered on the bond of Delray C. Brown, with the petitioner as surety, executed on the order of the Court of General Sessions in a nonsupport proceeding against Brown, should not be vacated and set aside.Rule issued, and on hearing it was dismissed.

November 3, 1912, Delray C. Brown, one of the defendants in the judgment in question, was ordered by the Court of General Sessions to pay to his wife, Martha V. Brown, for her support, ten dollars a month and to give bond with security to the State of Delaware to secure said payments.This bond was given with the other defendant, James P. Jones, as surety.

Subsequent to the order requiring Brown to make the payments to his wife, he brought an action for divorce against her on the ground of desertion, in which a decree nisi was granted June 14, 1915.Brown refusing to make the monthly payments to his wife after the date of the decree nisi, judgment was entered in this court upon said bond on June 10, 1916; and it is this judgment that one of the defendants, the said James P. Jones prays may be vacated and set aside.

The condition of the bond upon which the judgment was entered provided that the defendant Brown pay to his wife, Martha V Brown, ten dollars per month until otherwise ordered by the said court.That is, the order provided for the payment so long as Mrs. Brown continued to be the wife of Mr. Brown unless the Court of General Sessions otherwise ordered.There has been no subsequent order of the Court of General Sessions touching this matter, nor was any mention made in the decree nisi in the divorce case concerning it.

It is contended by counsel for defendants that upon the entry of the decree nisi in the divorce action in this court, the prior order of the Court of General Sessions is either annulled or satisfied, notwithstanding no order for alimony or support was made by this court in the divorce proceeding.

He claims that this court having jurisdiction of the same parties in the divorce proceeding, and the authority to make a decree providing for support and maintenance of the wife should it see fit so to do, whether such...