Jones v. Jones

• Decision Date: 06 August 1934
• Docket Number: No. 6120.,6120.
• Citation: 72 F.2d 829,63 App. DC 373
• Parties: JONES v. JONES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

63 App. DC 373, 72 F.2d 829 (1934)

JONES v. JONES.

No. 6120.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued April 5, 1934.

Decided August 6, 1934.

Raymond Neudecker and Jean M. Boardman, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Henry M. Fowler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

The present case was begun in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia by Bertie P. Jones, as plaintiff, against William R. Jones, as defendant, the parties being husband and wife, by a bill filed by the plaintiff praying for a divorce, a vinculo matrimonii, from the defendant and for the custody of their minor child, Doris Jones, and also for an order allowing maintenance for the support of the child.

On March 28, 1933, an absolute divorce was awarded the plaintiff as prayed by her, and she was granted the custody of their minor child. It also was ordered by the court "that the said William R. Jones pay to the plaintiff, Bertie P. Jones, the sum of $55 per month toward the support and maintenance of Doris Jones, infant daughter of plaintiff and defendant, during her minority, said amount being payable semimonthly in equal installments on the first and fifteenth of each month * * *."

On August 8, 1933, the plaintiff, Bertie P. Jones, filed a petition in the same case, charging that the defendant was in arrears for certain installments of the allowance granted to the minor child due July 1 and 15, 1933, and praying that a rule should issue against the defendant to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for disobedience of the court's decree. A rule to show cause was issued upon this petition.

On August 14, 1933, the defendant filed an answer to the rule alleging that his daughter, Doris Jones, had attained her majority on June 27, 1933, and claiming that under the court's order he was not required to make any further payments to her inasmuch as the payments were to continue only during her minority. He alleged also that she was now able to maintain and support herself.

The court heard the matter upon the petition, the rule to show cause, and the answer thereto, and held that "it appearing that the maintenance for the child of said parties alleged to be in default under the provisions of the decree of March 28, 1933, is claimed to have accrued subsequent to the time said child attained the age of 18 years, it is by the court, this 24th day of August 1933 ordered that the said rule be, and the same hereby is, discharged."

An appeal to this court was thereupon taken by the plaintiff, Bertie P. Jones, from the court's order.

It may be noted that the court's order for payment of maintenance required the defendant to pay the monthly allowance for the support and maintenance of his infant daughter "during her minority." The lower court held that the "minority" of the daughter had ceased when she attained the age of 18 years, and consequently that the defendant was not required to make further payments to her after that time. The sole question involved in the present case therefore is whether the minority of Doris Jones ceased when she attained the age of 18 years.

We think that the lower court erred in holding that under the laws of this District the infant daughter attained her majority when she reached the age of 18 years.

It is conceded that under the common law infants, whether male or female, attained their majority at the age of 21 years. It is also conceded that the Legislature may regulate the age of majority for infants in all cases, or for specified purposes only. The question to be determined therefore is whether or not in this jurisdiction the common-law rule requiring the father to support a female child until she attains the age of 21 years has been changed by statute.

It is an established rule of statutory construction that statutes changing the common law are to be strictly construed. McCarthy v. McCarthy, 20 App. D. C. 195. In that case, Chief Justice Alvey said: "And so no statute is to be construed as altering the rules of the common law, farther than its words plainly import."

We find no statute in force in the District of Columbia which clearly provides that female infants shall as a general rule attain their majority at the age of 18 years. It is true that exceptions to the common law rule have been provided by statute; these, however, recognize the continued existence of the general rule of the common law.

Section 393, D. C. Code 1924 (D. C. Code 1929, T. 29, § 302), provides that a female is entitled to receive a bequest of personal property at the age of 18. Section 403, D. C. Code 1924 (D. C. Code 1929, T. 15, § 14) provides that the utmost term for apprenticeship for males shall be until they attain the age of 21 years and for females until they attain the age of 18. Section 494, D. C. Code 1924 (D. C. Code 1929, T. 14, § 51) provides that a wife may release her dower at the age of 18. Section 1126, D....