Knapp v. Knapp

• Decision Date: 02 March 1883
• Citation: 134 Mass. 353
• Parties: Ann A. Knapp v. Mary S. Knapp, executrix
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

134 Mass. 353

Ann A. Knapp v. Mary S. Knapp, executrix

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

March 2, 1883

Argued November 9, 1882

Essex. Scire facias. The writ, dated July 11, 1881, and returnable to this court, alleged that the plaintiff, in April 1853, was granted by this court an absolute divorce from the bonds of matrimony from Isaac N. Knapp, and was allowed the sum of $ 200 by the year as her reasonable alimony, to be paid to her by Isaac N. Knapp in quarterly payments, to be computed from April 27, 1853; that, at a term of this court held in May 1855, it was considered by the court that the alimony of the plaintiff be increased to $ 250 a year, to be paid to her by Isaac N. Knapp in quarterly payments, the first quarter to be computed from and after April 27, 1855; and decrees to the said effect were duly entered, "whereof the said Isaac N. Knapp is convict, as to us appears of record;" that although said decrees were entered, yet no portion of the same had yet been paid or satisfied; that Isaac N. Knapp died, October 25, 1879, possessed of goods and estate, and leaving a will whereof the defendant was named as executrix which will was, on December 21, 1879, duly admitted to probate in this Commonwealth, and the defendant was appointed executrix, and duly gave bond as such, which was approved by the court; that the said executrix had, although a year and more had elapsed since said appointment and qualification failed to pay said arrears of alimony, but refused to pay the same, or any part of the same.

The defendant moved to dismiss the writ, for the reason that the writ could not be maintained against the defendant, on any facts set forth therein; and because no order for payment of arrears of alimony ought to be issued on a proceeding begun after the death of the defendant's testator.

Devens J., ordered the writ to be dismissed; and the plaintiff appealed to the full court.

Order dismissing the writ reversed, the motion to dismiss it overruled, the defendant plead, and cause stand for hearing.

D. L Withington, for the plaintiff.

S. Snow, for the defendant.

Field, J. C. Allen, Colburn & Holmes, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Field, J.

Although an action of contract on the judgment is the remedy commonly used in this Commonwealth, still a writ of scire facias is an appropriate process to obtain execution against the estate of a deceased judgment debtor in the hands of his executor or administrator. Heapy v. Parris, 6 T. R. 368. Bragner v. Langmead, 7 T. R. 20. Earl v. Brown, 1 Wils. 302. Hildreth v. Thompson, 16 Mass. 191. Jeffreson v. Morton, 2 Wms. Saund. 12, n. Wright v. Madocks, 8 Q. B. 119. Com, Dig. Execution, F.

Scire facias was considered a proper process to enforce against the husband a decree for alimony. Morton v. Morton, 4 Cush. 518. In Slade v. Slade, 106 Mass. 499, it was held that scire facias was not the exclusive remedy against the husband to enforce a decree for alimony, and it was said that "a petition is usually preferable to a scire facias, because the proceeding is more speedy and flexible."

An execution in common form is the ordinary process to enforce such a decree for the payment of money, but the court may in a proper case issue an attachment for contempt, or any other appropriate process, in the same manner as decrees are enforced in equity. Gen. Sts. c. 107, §§ 45-53; c. 113, § 23. Pub. Sts. c. 146, §§ 33, 37; c. 151, § 29. In equity, if a suit abates by death, the ordinary process to revive it is a bill of revivor; but it seems that, if the suit abated by the death of the respondent after the decree has been signed and enrolled, the practice anciently was to revive the decree by a subpoena in the nature of a scire facias. Story Eq. Pl. § 366. The existing practice is now governed by the chancery rules 25 and 26, 104 Mass. 552, and by the statutes. See Pub. Sts. c. 165, § 19. Under these statutes and rules, a petition by the plaintiff in this cause might be an appropriate remedy, but we are of opinion that she is also entitled to a writ of scire facias from this court, where the record is.

Allen v. Allen, 100 Mass. 373, decides that, since the enactment of the statutory provisions which are still in force, an action of contract on a decree for alimony rendered in this Commonwealth cannot be maintained in the Superior Court; and it is said that "this court is the only one in this State competent to enforce payment of alimony decreed by itself." The court say that "the fact that, by the practice of divorce suits, such a decree in the court by which it is made will be revised and altered for due cause shown; made greater or less as the necessities of the wife have increased or diminished, or taken away altogether when she has been guilty of flagrant misconduct; together with the circumstance that arrears of alimony do not survive the death of the wife, and are incapable of enforcement by her executor or administrator, present forcible arguments against allowing on such a decree an action at common law, in which no modification of it can be made, but judgment must be given for or against it, as it stands." But if a writ of scire facias can be brought against the husband to obtain an execution against him for alimony, which, by a decree of the court, he has been ordered to pay, there is no good reason why the same process...