Perry v. Perry
| Decision Date | 29 January 1953 |
| Citation | 329 Mass. 771,110 N.E.2d 498 |
| Parties | PERRY v. PERRY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Solomon Rosenberg and Jack M. Rosenberg, New Bedford, for petitioner.
William B. Perry, Jr., New Bedford, Leonard E. Perry, New Bedford, for respondent Frank Perry.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and SPALDING, JJ.
The parties are husband and wife. On May 10, 1943, on a separate support petition the Probate Court entered a decree that the wife was living apart from the husband for justifiable cause. No order was then made for the wife's support, but on July 2, 1948, the decree, by agreement, was modified by requiring the husband to pay $20 weekly. At the same time the judge filed a 'memorandum' reading in part, 'As soon as the petitioner is well and able to go to work, the petition for modification may be reopened, and if the petitioner is able to support herself, the twenty dollar a week order is to be revoked.' These are two petitions filed in the separate support proceedings on May 23, 1951. One is by the wife to adjudge the husband in contempt, and the other is by the husband to revoke the weekly support order. After hearing the judge found the husband in contempt and ordered him to pay $967 on or before December 10, 1951. On the petition for modification the judge reduced the weekly payments to $15. The husband appealed from both decrees. There was no error. The husband paid the $967 as ordered, but we assume he nevertheless has not waived his right of appeal. O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U.S. 150, 154, 23 L.Ed. 840; Beronio v. Pension Commission of Hoboken, 130 N.J.L. 620, 622, 33 A.2d 855; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 214. The report of material facts shows that the wife is forty-eight years of age, and is attending Boston University School of Liberal Arts to prepare herself for resuming her former occupation of teacher. The so-called 'memorandum' accompanying the decree of July 2, 1948, did not require the judge to decide either petition against the wife. The 'court may make further orders relative to the support of the wife * * * and may, from time to time * * * revise and alter such order or make a new order or decree, as the circumstances * * * may require.' G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 209, § 32. McIlroy v. McIlroy, 208 Mass. 458, 464, 94 N.E. 696; Sawyer v. Kuhnle, 324 Mass. 53, 56, 84 N.E.2d 546. The findings in the report of material facts do not show error in the decree on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thibbitts v. Crowley
...940 (1979). Because the defendant did not act voluntarily, he did not waive his objection. Cohen v. Murphy, supra. Perry v. Perry, 329 Mass. 771, 110 N.E.2d 498 (1953). Johnson v. Brockton, supra. The doctrine of estoppel is equally inapplicable. "[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied e......
-
Cohen v. Murphy
...203 (1956). We have assumed that a husband who complies with a support order does not waive his right of appeal. Perry v. Perry, 329 Mass. 771, 110 N.E.2d 498 (1953), and cases cited. In the present case there was settlement of an order for the payment of money by the conveyance of an inter......
-
Mills v. Mills
...of standing because she seeks enforcement of the divorce decree rather than compensation for the violation. See Perry v. Perry, 329 Mass. 771, 110 N.E.2d 498 (1953). Nor did she become 'disentitled', as the defendant argues, when the children became adults. The decree was obviously intended......