Paff v. Paff

1 Hopk. Ch. 584
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedOctober 29, 1825
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Hopk. Ch. 584 (Paff v. Paff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paff v. Paff, 1 Hopk. Ch. 584 (N.Y. 1825).

Opinion

The Court.

Under the decree made in the former suit, either party was entitled to apply to the court, for a farther order; but neither party was at liberty to file a new bill for the purpose of varying the former decree. Where a final decree thus gives a right to ask the farther order of the court, every purpose of justice may be fully attained, by a summary application to the court, and such summary proceedings as the court may direct; and a farther order may in general, be made with little delay or expense. When any difficult question arises upon such an application, the court may direct, that a bill be filed, or may award an issue, for a more complete investigation of the case. But it can not be tolerated, that either party should of course and without leave of the court, institute a new suit in full form, for the purpose of varying a final decree of this nature. If such bills were permitted upon every change in the circumstances of a party, they might become very oppressive : and such a practice is wholly unnecessary. Applications to vary allowances made in cases of divorce, have hitherto, been made to this court, by motion or petition; and this practice must be enforced.

Upon the facts of this case, it is clear, that the defendant is now able to furnish an adequate maintenance for his children; and upon a proper application, the court will direct a farther allowance. But this suit having been instituted without leave of the court, and being wholly irregular, it must be dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Hopk. Ch. 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paff-v-paff-nychanct-1825.