Lund v. Lund
| Decision Date | 06 July 1950 |
| Citation | 74 A.2d 557,96 N.H. 283 |
| Parties | LUND v. LUND. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
George M. French and Frank B. Clancy, Jr., Nashua, for plaintiff.
J. Norton Rosenblum, Manchester, for defendant.
The petition for contempt was filed more than three years after the original divorce decree and it is argued by the defendant that the present case is subject to the three year limitation on alimony orders. This question requires a construction of R.L. c. 339, § 16 and particularly the italicized portion thereof. The statute reads as follows:
Prior to the passage of Laws 1937, c. 154 there was no time limit or duration affecting alimony payments and the Superior Court could revise or modify an alimony decree at any time. Wallace v. Wallace, 74 N.H. 256, 67 A. 580, 13 Ann.Cas. 293; LeBeau v. LeBeau, 80 N.H. 139, 114 A. 28. This was also true of other provisions of the divorce decree such as allowances for the support of children, Kennard v. Kennard, 81 N.H. 509, 129 A. 725, or allowance for the education of children. Payette v. Payette, 85 N.H. 297, 157 A. 531. The 1937 amendment was incorporated in the present statute and was first construed in Bradley v. Bradley, 92 N.H. 70, 71, 24 A.2d 605, 606, a case where the parties had no children, as follows: 'The effect of the statute is to bring up such orders for reconsideration every three years, but the power of the court to make such orders 'as may be deemed just' is in no way limited.'
It is contended in the present case that there is no order for custody and support of the minor and that the order for the educational support of the child was a collateral one which is not dependent on or related to the alimony order for the plaintiff. Considering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solomon v. Findley
...589 P.2d 148 (1979); White v. White, 25 N.C.App. 150, 212 S.E.2d 511 (1975), aff'd 289 N.C. 592, 223 S.E.2d 377 (1976); Lund v. Lund, 96 N.H. 283, 74 A.2d 557 (1950); Jarvis v. Jarvis, 99 Misc.2d 79, 415 N.Y.S.2d 557 (1978); Grant v. Grant, 60 Ohio App.2d 277, 396 N.E.2d 1037 (1977); Martin......
-
Homewood v. Homewood
...327 A.2d 704 (1974). But, "(w)here the decree affects both wife and child, the three year time limit is not effective." Lund v. Lund, 96 N.H. 283, 285, 74 A.2d 557 (1950). See also Angwin v. Angwin, 103 N.H. 531, 533, 176 A.2d 194 (1961), in which the court wrote, "the case was one in which......
-
Dorman v. Dorman
...142, 30 N.W.2d 748; Clark v. Graves (1955), Ky., 282 S.W.2d 146; Titus v. Titus (1945), 311 Mich. 434, 18 N.W.2d 883; Lund v. Lund (1950), 96 N.H. 283, 74 A.2d 557; Straver v. Straver (1948), 140 N.J.Eq. 480, 59 A.2d 39; Cohen v. Cohen (1948), 193 Misc. 106, 82 N.Y.S.2d 513; Atchley v. Atch......
-
French v. French, 7591
...settlement and cannot be amended. Douglas v. Douglas, 109 N.H. 41, 242 A.2d 78 (1968). We do not accept this argument. In Lund v. Lund, 96 N.H. 283, 74 A.2d 557 (1950), cited by the plaintiff, the court said that the decree "is to be considered in its entirety," Id. 285, 74 A.2d 559, but th......