Valiquet v. Valiquet

• Decision Date: 28 June 1909
• Citation: 177 F. 994
• Parties: VALIQUET v. VALIQUET.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

177 F. 994

VALIQUET v. VALIQUET.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

June 28, 1909

John G Pheil, for complainant.

William P. Martin, for defendant.

CROSS District Judge.

The facts set up in the bill of complaint, summarized, are: That the complainant is a resident and citizen of the state of New York, and that the defendant is a resident and citizen of the state of New Jersey. That on November 13, 1893, the complainant, then being the wife of Louis P. Valiquet, the defendant, instituted an action for divorce from the bonds of matrimony against him in the Supreme Court of the state of New York, held in and for the county of Kings, in said state of which state both the complainant and defendant were then residents. That such proceedings were thereon had that on July 19, 1894, a decree was entered in said court that the marriage between the complainant and the defendant be dissolved, and that the complainant be freed from the obligation thereof.

That it was also thereby decreed that the complainant should have leave to apply at the foot of said decree for such other and further relief as she might thereafter become entitled to have. That pursuant to said decree the complainant afterwards applied to one of the justices of said Supreme Court, at a Special Term of said court held in the county of Kings January 9, 1902, for permanent alimony and counsel fees in said action. That counsel having been heard by said court, it was decreed, among other things:

'That said defendant pay to your oratrix the sum of $12 per week during her natural life, as a suitable allowance to your oratrix for her support and maintenance, and that said allowance be paid in manner following, that is to say: That the said sum of $12 be paid as aforesaid into the hand or upon the order of your oratrix, at the office of Geo. F. Elliott, Esq., 215 Montague street, in the borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, and state of New York, as of Wednesday, the 8th day of January, 1902, and a like sum on each succeeding Wednesday during the natural life of your oratrix, and that the above-mentioned decree of divorce be amended to that effect.'

That pursuant to said decree the defendant, still being a resident of the city and state of New York, paid to the complainant at divers times up to January 28, 1905, the sum of $1,848, being the alimony awarded her by said decree to December 28, 1904. That since the above date the defendant has not paid the complainant any other or further sum under said decree, except the sum of $50 paid her on or about June 22, 1905. That the defendant removed from the jurisdiction of the state of New York in the late summer of 1905, and since that time has willfully remained away from that jurisdiction for the purpose, as the complainant believes and charges, of escaping the payment of any further alimony, and that he now resides at the city of Newark, in this state. That two certain orders were procured from judges of the Supreme Court of New York, requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be punished for failure to make the payments directed by said decree. That said orders were never served...