Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. HAMILTON v. HAMILTON (09/13/62)

September 13, 1962

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. HAMILTON
v.
HAMILTON, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 220, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Berks County, Dec. T., 1961, No. 253, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Barbara B. Hamilton v. James O. Hamilton. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Frederick G. McGavin, with him McGavin, DeSantis & Koch, for appellant.

John W. Biehl, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Ervin

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 256]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

James O. Hamilton appealed from an order of support entered by the court below in favor of his wife, Barbara B. Hamilton, and children, aged 16, 14 and 11.

At the time of the hearing the parties had been married for more than 17 years. The entire family is living together in a common household at 936 Sunnyside Avenue, wyomissing, Berks County, Pennsylvania, the home being of a value of thirty to thirty-five thousand dollars.

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 257]

Judge ALBERT S. READINGER expended a considerable amount of time in courteously hearing the testimony which was presented in this case. The order which he made was extremely fair but after reading all of the record we are of the opinion that no order should have been made.

For most of the years of this marriage and prior to December 1961 the management of the household and the payment of bills was under the exclusive control of the wife. The husband, for the period from January 1, 1961 through November 1961, made available to appellee various sums of money totaling $7,940.80 by deposits in a joint bank account for the purpose of maintaining the family. Sometime in November 1961 the wife decided that she no longer wanted to handle the household finances. She testified as follows" "Q. If we went back to the arrangements in effect prior to the end of November , 1961, where you had access to all funds with the exception of income from 927 and 929 Penn Ave., and all dividends from A. T. & T., subject to paying expenses which you were expected to pay, would that be a satisfactory arrangement in lieu of $127 a week? A No, sir. Q. In other words, if your husband is perfectly willing to turn over his income to you as prior to November, 1961, with the exception of 927 and 929 Penn Ave., that would not be satisfactory? A. That's right. That's how this started in the first place. I told him I couldn't get along on it. I asked him to do it. He refused. Q. Isn't that what he is attempting to do now? A. I don't know. I couldn't manage on this particular amount of money as he agreed. Q. Wasn't that income supplemented by loans from the bank? A. Yes, there were 2 loans. Q. How much were they? A. I believe the first one was $800, $600 of which went to the Internal Revenue Service. Q. What about the other $200? A. That went into the joint checking account. I have this listed under other income. The

[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 258]

    other was a loan for $900, and with that $850 went toward the purchase of a used car and $50 I added to the income again. Q. When was that loan ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.