Robert A. Detweiler, Philadelphia, David Davidsen, in pro. per., for appellant.
James Rutherford, Honesdale, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hiry, Reno, Ross, Gunther, Wright and Woodside, JJ.
[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 124]
This is a proceeding in equity brought by the wife on May 2, 1949, for her support under the Act of May 23, 1907, P.L. 227, as amended, 48 P.S. §§ 131, 132.
The plaintiff in her bill averred that she resided in Hawley, Wayne County, Pennsylvania; that defendant
[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 125]
without justification or excuse there deserted her and their two minor children; that defendant was residing in Brooklyn, New York; that he had failed, refused, and neglected to provide support for plaintiff and their children since the time of the desertion; that defendant had property within the jurisdiction of the court consisting of certain real estate at 205 Welwood Avenue, Hawley, Wayne County, having a value of approximately $5,000. The prayer of the bill was that defendant be declared liable for the support and maintenance of claimant and their children; that the court fix the amount to which plaintiff was entitled for past and future maintenance; and that from said property plaintiff be paid a monthly allowance for maintenance or defendant be required to convey the same to plaintiff.
Defendant filed an answer to plaintiff's bill. Ownership of the property by defendant was admitted. Defendant's defense was that since October 26, 1946, he was under no duty to support plaintiff as he had been divorced from her by decree of the Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada, which was filed and recorded on that date; and that prior thereto he had provided her with support.
A decree nisi of October 3, 1951, which was made final as of May 7, 1952, directed defendant to pay plaintiff for her support $20 per week, recoverable from defendant's real estate within the Commonwealth if such payments were not otherwise made by him. See Civera v. Civera, 174 Pa. Super. 43, 45, 98 A.2d 432. Exceptions to the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were dismissed. Defendant has appealed to this Court.
The jurisdiction of the court below has not been questioned. Defendant relies on the Nevada divorce to justify his refusal to support plaintiff. There are two ...