Paul v. Paul

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Paul v. Paul

3 R.I. Dec. 49

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 4, 1926

DocketDiv.No.826

StatusPublished

This text of 3 R.I. Dec. 49 (Paul v. Paul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul v. Paul, 3 R.I. Dec. 49 (R.I. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

WALSH, J.

Heard on motion to adjudge the respondent in contempt for failure, to observe the terms of an interlocutory decree which was continued in force with the assent of the parties and with the consent of the court, after the original petition had been denied and dismissed.

While this arrangement may have been for the best interests of all parties, including the minor child when the same was entered into, it seems to us that the court is without jurisdiction to enforce it in the usual way upon respondent’s default. The petitioner in such case has her remedy in the common law court where she may bring a criminal complaint for non-support.

Upon rendering decision denying ■and dismissing the petition, the in-terlucto-v dec'ee becomes ineffective as far as future payments thereunder are concerned.

Motion to adjudge in contempt denied.

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

WALSH, J.

Heard on motion to adjudge the respondent in contempt for failure, to observe the terms of an interlocutory decree which was continued in force with the assent of the parties and with the consent of the court, after the original petition had been denied and dismissed.

While this arrangement may have been for the best interests of all parties, including the minor child when the same was entered into, it seems to us that the court is without jurisdiction to enforce it in the usual way upon respondent’s default. The petitioner in such case has her remedy in the common law court where she may bring a criminal complaint for non-support.

Upon rendering decision denying ■and dismissing the petition, the in-terlucto-v dec'ee becomes ineffective as far as future payments thereunder are concerned.

Motion to adjudge in contempt denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 R.I. Dec. 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-paul-risuperct-1926.