Pilson v. Salvoni, 6374.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1935
• Docket Number: No. 6374.,6374.
• Citation: 79 F.2d 411,65 App. DC 55
• Parties: PILSON v. SALVONI.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

65 App. DC 55, 79 F.2d 411 (1935)

PILSON v. SALVONI.

No. 6374.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued May 8, 1935.

Decided July 29, 1935.

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

Sefton Darr, George E. Monk, and James O'D. Moran, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

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

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

An appeal from a judgment entered against appellant by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon a decree for alimony theretofore granted to appellee, his wife, by a circuit court of the state of Maryland.

It appears that on October 25, 1923, in a divorce case then pending in the circuit court for Montgomery county, Md., wherein appellee was plaintiff and appellant was defendant, appellee recovered from appellant a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii. No allowance of alimony was made in the case to appellee for her own use; however, she was awarded the custody of the three infant children of the parties, subject to the right of the father to visit the children at reasonable times and places, and appellant was ordered to pay to her the sum of $75 per month for the maintenance of the children until the further order of the court.

The part of the court's decree requiring the payment of maintenance for the children reads as follows: "It is further ordered that the defendant pay the sum of $75 on the first day of each month hereinafter to the plaintiff for the maintenance of said infant children until the further order of the court. * * * The alimony is in accordance with the consent of the parties expressed by their solicitors."

It appears that no payment has ever been made by appellant to appellee for the maintenance of the children as required by the foregoing decree.

On December 12, 1933, a writ of fi. fa. was issued by the Maryland court to the sheriff of Montgomery county, reciting that appellant was indebted to appellee in the sum of $9,150 because of his default to pay any part of the allowance for maintenance and directing that such sum should be made by execution upon the property of appellant. On December 13, 1933, the writ was duly returned by the sheriff indorsed nulla bona.

On February 5, 1934, appellee commenced an action at law in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia against appellant to recover from him the sum of $9,150, being the sum total of the allowance for maintenance of the children which had accrued under the decree in the divorce case up to and including the month of December, 1933.

The appellant interposed in defense an amended first plea wherein he alleged that he was not indebted for any portion of the claim sued upon for that on December 20, 1923, the appellee agreed that if appellant would relinquish his right to visit the children in accordance with the provisions of the court's decree, and if thereafter he would not visit the children, she would relinquish and renounce her right to receive the maintenance awarded by the decree, and would release and discharge appellant from his obligation to pay the same; and that in consideration and performance of this agreement appellant did in fact relinquish his right to visit the children and since that date has not visited them.

A demurrer to this plea was sustained by the court; and appellant having elected to stand on the plea, judgment was entered against him for the full amount of the claim. From this judgment the present appeal was taken.

The finality of the Maryland decree with respect to past-due installments of alimony and the right to bring an action at law for the recovery of the same is conceded by appel...