Parkinson v. Parkinson

222 A.D. 838
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 222 A.D. 838 (Parkinson v. Parkinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parkinson v. Parkinson, 222 A.D. 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Order entered September 13, 1927, in so far as it denies defendant’s motion that judgment be docketed in her favor, reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, motion to that extent granted, with ten dollars costs, and judgment for $750, the amount of alimony due under the decree, directed for defendant, with costs. The court at Special Term undertook to excuse the payment of alimony upon the ground that although, by an agreement between the parties, made in the presence of the court, the alimony should be used for the purpose of maintaining the son of the parties at a private military academy, he was taken therefrom by defendant and sent to a public school. The court had no power thus informally to construe or modify its decree, or to make its order retroactive so as to deprive defendant of the moneys due to her thereunder. Plaintiff may, however, upon the facts disclosed, apply to the court for a modification of the decree as to future payments. As plaintiff is concededly financially able to pay the alimony, that part of the order which denies sequestration is affirmed, without costs. In view of this decision, the appeal from the order denying defendant’s motion for reargument is dismissed, without costs. Young, Kapper, Hagarty, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Rosenblatt v. Birnbaum
20 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Lichtig v. Lichtig
81 P.R. 716 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1960)
Parnham v. Parnham
89 P.2d 189 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Harris v. Harris
182 N.E. 7 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D. 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkinson-v-parkinson-nyappdiv-1928.