Meinel v. Meinel
| Decision Date | 14 July 1933 |
| Docket Number | 37-1933 |
| Citation | 109 Pa.Super. 159,167 A. 385 |
| Parties | Meinel v. Meinel, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued December 15, 1932
Appeal by defendant from order of C. P., No. 2, Philadelphia County March T., 1930, No. 4948, in the case of William John Meinel v. Jennie Margaret Meinel.
Petition to vacate order of alimony pendente lite. Before Lewis, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the rule but modified the order of alimony. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of court reducing the alimony.
Appeal dismissed.
George J. Edwards, Jr., for appellant, cited: Ponthus v Ponthus, 70 Pa.Super. 39; Herbertson v. Herbertson, 30 Dist. 692; Powers' Appeal, 120 Pa. 320.
No appearance and no printed brief for appellee.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrige Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.
This is an appeal by respondent from the order of court reducing the amount of alimony pendente lite from $ 100 per week to $ 60 per week, on a rule to vacate the order for alimony, where no application for a reduction had been made.
On August 25, 1930, the lower court upon petition, answer and depositions, entered an order that the husband, libellant, pay to the wife, respondent, alimony pendente lite at the rate of $ 100 per week, without prejudice to the right of either party to apply later for a modification.
On August 30, 1932, a final decree was entered divorcing the libellant from his wife.
The libellant, on September 26, 1932, entered a rule on his wife to show cause why the decree for alimony should not be vacated as of August 23, 1932, payment having been made to that date. A responsive answer was filed by respondent, denying each allegation of the petition.
The court below, Lewis, J., on November 10, 1932, discharged the rule to vacate and made absolute a rule reducing the order for alimony pendente lite from $ 100 per week to $ 60 per week. From the order so reducing the amount of alimony, this appeal is taken by respondent.
At the time this appeal was taken no appeal had been taken by respondent from the decree granting the divorce. An appeal was subsequently taken at No. 358, October Term, 1932, and argued with this case, and an opinion filed herewith.
Appellant contends that the court below, having discharged the rule to vacate the decree for alimony pendente lite, had no authority to reduce the amount of alimony theretofore granted, without a petition or a separate rule in support thereof. The right to alimony pendente lite is statutory. (Act of May 2, 1929, P. L. 1237, Sec. 46.) Orlady, P. J., in Karmany v. Karmany, 71 Pa.Super. 308, 310. The Act of 1929, supra, has not changed the discretionary power vested in the court.
We quote from the opinion of our Brother Baldrige, in Kuehnle v. Kuehnle, 103...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. Chaney
...507, 187 A. 245 (1936). Alimony pendente lite, under Section 46 of the 1929 Code, was similarly a statutory right, Meinel v. Meinel, 109 Pa.Super. 159, 167 A. 385 (1933), and was awarded in order to enable the dependent spouse to bring or to defend the divorce action, Young v. Young, 274 Pa......
-
Gilbert v. Gilbert
...Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in Meinel v. Meinel, appropriately noted--'The right to alimony pendente lite is statutory.' 109 Pa.Super. 159, 167 A. 385 (1933). The Supreme Court of New Mexico, in Bardin v. Bardin, 51 N.M. 2, 177 P.2d 167 (1947) declined to give effect to arguments advanc......