Vahjen v. Vahjen

• Decision Date: 21 October 1929
• Parties: VAHJEN v. VAHJEN.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

147 A. 543

VAHJEN

v. VAHJEN.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Oct. 21, 1929.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where the husband has absconded, the wife is not barred in seeking to enforce her lien for alimony under a divorce decree of this court.

Petition by Marie Vahjen against John C. Vahjen to forfeit ne exeat bond. Petition grunted.

Besson & Pellett, of Hoboken, for petitioner.

William E. Decker, of Jersey City, for defendant.

LEWIS, Vice Chancellor. This is an application by the petitioner to have the ne exeat bond forfeited and to require the surety to pay the penal amount of said bond into court so that it can be disbursed in accordance with the orders of this court. I think that her petition should be granted. This court will retain proceedings to enforce liability under its orders. Warren v. Warren, 92 N. J. Eq. 334, 112 A. 729; Elliott v. Elliott (N. J. Ch.) 36 A. 951.

The bond was given on November 14, 1912, by John C. Vahjen and John Handwerk and was made to Nicholas P. Wedin, sheriff of Hudson county, in the sum of $2,000. It is the usual ne exeat bond. The condition of the bond is as follows: "Now the condition of this obligation is such that if the said John C. Vahjen shall cause his appearance to be entered in the said suit and to continue such appearing by a solicitor of the Court of Chancery residing in the State of New Jersey and shall at all times render himself amenable to the orders and process of said court pending such suit and to such process as shall be issued to compel the performance of the final decree therein and shall appear before said Court or any officer thereof when so required by the order of said Court, then this obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue."

The petition for divorce was filed January 29, 1912. The final decree was made in the cause on the 15th day of April, 1913, dismissing the petition of the petitioner and ordering the defendant to pay petitioner $5 a week as alimony under the decree and a counsel fee of $600, besides the costs of suit, which counsel fee and costs were to be paid at the rate of $25 a month, and said decree was duly served upon the defendant.

The defendant defaulted in the payments under the decree, and petitioner proceeded against him for contempt. On the 12th day of May, 1914, an order was made in the cause adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt of court, but the court allowed him to purge himself of contempt if he would pay petitioner $5 a week as alimony and $10 a week on account of the counsel fee to commence at that time and to keep up said payments.

The defendant made one payment of $15 on account of said alimony and counsel fee on the 16th day of May, 1914; another payment of $15 on the 1st day of June, 1914; and a third payment of $15 on the 15th day of June, 1914, when he again defaulted in his payments, and petitioner was obliged to again proceed...