Suydam v. Suydam
| Decision Date | 16 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. A--536,A--536 |
| Citation | 5 N.J.Super. 359,69 A.2d 216 |
| Parties | SUYDAM v. SUYDAM. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Before McGEEHAN, COLIE and EASTWOOD, JJ.
Crawford Jamieson, Trenton, argued the cause for appellant (Jamieson & Walsh, Trenton, attorneys).
Philip M. Chamberlin, Trenton, argued the cause for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
COLIE, J.A.D.
This appeal is from a judgment awarding a lump sum for arrears of alimony, award of counsel fees, adjudging appellant in contempt of court and directing him to pay $20 a week for respondent's support.
The parties were married in 1933. In 1937 the wife filed a petition for divorce and obtained a decree which provided for alimony of $50 a week. In February 1939, appellant ceased the weekly payments and contempt proceedings were commenced against him. He countered with a proceeding to modify the alimony payments downward. The matters were referred to a Master before whom testimony was taken and who filed his report in August, 1939. The appellant filed exceptions to the Master's report and late in 1939 argument was had before an Advisory Master and briefs filed. Eight years elapsed before the Advisory Master entered an order on September 23, 1947 reducing the weekly payments of alimony to $10 a week, payments to commence on July 1, 1939 in accordance with a stipulation between the parties. The same order awarded counsel fees of $500 and $350 to counsel. No appeal was taken from said order. While the decision on the exceptions was pending, appellant continued payments at the $50 rate until March, 1940 when, on advice of counsel, he ceased all payments. After the entry of the belated order of September 23, 1947 there ensued negotiations relative to a lump sum payment of alimony which broke down. Thereafter in December, 1948, respondent filed a petition to hold appellant in contempt of court for failure to obey the modifying order of September 23, 1947. After hearing, the judgment summarized in the fore part of this opinion was entered and this appeal taken therefrom.
Appellant argues that the judgment for arrears of alimony should be reversed because of respondent's lack of diligence in taking steps to compel the appellant to keep up his weekly payments. She is said to be in laches and that her refusal to accept some ad interim payments bespeaks her ability to maintain herself without the weekly payments and the fact that she has subsisted without them demonstrates that there is no necessity that she be paid the arrearages of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitehead v. Villapiano
...institution of this suit. Cf. Davis v. Gould, 234 Mo.App. 42, 131 S.W.2d 360 (Springfield Ct.Apps., Mo., 1939); Suydam v. Suydam, 5 N.J.Super. 359, 69 A.2d 216 (App.Div.1949). Furthermore, nothing in the Nevada statute of limitations suggests that the limitation is in reality one upon the r......
-
Salmeri v. Salmeri
...Now §§ 2A:16-18 and 19, N.J.S.A.10 Ibid.11 Section 20-66, W.S.1957.12 We do not interpret Suydam v. Suydam, 5 N.J.Super. 359, 69 A.2d 216 (1949) as being contrary to that position. The appellate division of the Superior Court of New Jersey did modify a judgment fixing the arrears entered by......
-
Marsh v. Vetter
...against her. Plaintiff showed no prejudice to him whatever by reason of his making the lesser payments. See Suydam v. Suydam, 5 N.J.Super. 359, 361, 69 A.2d 216 (App.Div.1949). We uphold the judge's order as to the However, we reverse that part of the order which decrees that plaintiff pay ......
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...too long to establish the contempt, especially since the delay was not due to plaintiff's fault. Plaintiff cites Suydam v. Suydam, 5 N.J.Super. 359, 69 A.2d 216 (App.Div.1949), in support of this proposition. In that case the husband violated a decree which provided alimony for his wife at ......