Appeal, No. 258, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, May 21, 1958, Domestic Relations Division No. 2330, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Sophye K. Meth v. Lewis B. Meth. Order affirmed.
Irvin Siegel, with him Herman Bloom, for appellant.
Nathan L. Posner, with him Donald Brown, and Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 554]
This is an appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, denying a petition for an increase in the support of Sophye K. Meth, the appellant wife.
The matter has a long history in the Municipal Court, where the original order of support was made on July 28, 1944, directing Lewis B. Meth, the appellee husband, to pay for the support of his wife, the sum of $10 per week. On July 9, 1946, the order was increased to $25 per week and on August 19, 1947, another petition for an increase was denied. Then on August 4, 1949, the order was reduced to $20 per week, upon which order the appellee is presently paying.
In 1952, the appellant filed a petition for support in Camden, New Jersey, where after extensive hearings the New Jersey Superior Court treating the petition as one for an increase in support, and giving full faith and credit to the Pennsylvania Court's order, found that "The change of circumstances of the respective parties hereto is not such that would warrant any revision
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 555]
of the present order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Pa., in the amount of $20.00."
The present petition for an increase was brought on April 10, 1957 and the court below, finding no change in circumstances, dismissed it.
We agree with the court below that the appellant's New Jersey action did not divest the Municipal Court of Philadelphia of jurisdiction. Com. ex rel. Milne v. Milne, 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 100, 26 A.2d 207 (1942). "Where two tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction over any subject matter, the court in which the proceedings are first commenced has priority and no other court may limit the power of the first tribunal to dispose of the case." Com. v. Moon, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. ...