Commonwealth Ex Rel. Condran v. Condran

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Condran v. Condran

100 Pa. Super. 79, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 30, 1930

DocketAppeal 323

StatusPublished

This text of 100 Pa. Super. 79 (Commonwealth Ex Rel. Condran v. Condran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Condran v. Condran, 100 Pa. Super. 79, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22 (Pa. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant applied to the Domestic Relations Division of the Municipal Court for support for herself and child, alleging desertion on the part of the defendant. The case was heard on May 9, 1930, and an order made for the sum of $8.00 a week for the support of the child alone.

There was evidence given by the defendant that his wife violently attacked him and had driven him from home and the judge who heard the case was impressed by his story and deemed it best to give the *81 money for the support of the minor child alone. The defendant was only earning $25.00 a week.

There was a petition for rehearing alleging that the defendant had misrepresented his earnings. When the hearing was had, it was evident that there had been no substantial change in the earnings of the defendant and there was no good reason presented for changing the order of May 9, 1930. The matter was plainly within the descretion of the lower court. There was ample proof to sustain the conclusion that the husband did not earn more than $25.00 and $8.00 was a substantial allowance for the support of the child.

The order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The appellant applied to the Domestic Relations Division of the Municipal Court for support for herself and child, alleging desertion on the part of the defendant. The case was heard on May 9, 1930, and an order made for the sum of $8.00 a week for the support of the child alone.

There was evidence given by the defendant that his wife violently attacked him and had driven him from home and the judge who heard the case was impressed by his story and deemed it best to give the *81 money for the support of the minor child alone. The defendant was only earning $25.00 a week.

There was a petition for rehearing alleging that the defendant had misrepresented his earnings. When the hearing was had, it was evident that there had been no substantial change in the earnings of the defendant and there was no good reason presented for changing the order of May 9, 1930. The matter was plainly within the descretion of the lower court. There was ample proof to sustain the conclusion that the husband did not earn more than $25.00 and $8.00 was a substantial allowance for the support of the child.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. Super. 79, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-condran-v-condran-pasuperct-1930.