The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-02-03
FAILURE To PAY
ALIMONY RAISES
NEW QUESTION
Chancellor PereS to Decide
Point Presented by Jesse
EdgingtOn-SayS Jail Sem
tenCe Would Violate Act.

Whether or not the state courts can
imprison a man for failure to pay per
manent alimony to his divorced wife is
a question that is soon to be decided
by Chancellor Israel Peres in the case
Of Laura Mae Bond against George
W Bond, The case is now under ad-
NlsemeTt by the court and his decision
IS expected to have a far-reachng eff
feet throughout the state.
IN this case a decree was entered
some time ago against George w Bond
Tor $50 per month permanent aimony.
He had no estate and upon his failure
TO Keep up the payments, Laura Mae
BOND BOND filed a petition in Chancellor
teres court asking that Bond be ad-
Judged in contempt of court because
OF his failure to pay the $50 per month
designated in the decree, and that he
De confined in Jail until he complied
with the decree.
Jesse Edgington. representing George
w. Bond, in his argument TO Chancel-
Tor Peres declared that the decree was
flhal Judgment of the chanCerv court
and that there was but one method of
collecting a final decree and that was
by execution, and, further that the
court in its order directed that the
ahmony should be collected by execu-
ton.
Judge Edgington stated that any at
failure to pay the judgment was VIC
lation of article /, section 10 of the
constitution of the state of Tennessee
which provides that
The legislature shall pass no law
authorizing Imprisonment for debt in
civil cases"
Judge Edgington took the position
that this was strictly a civil case and
that the constitution clearly means that
there must be no imprisonment for debt
IN this case. When a liability of any
sort is reduced to a judgment or de
cree, he commended. it is popularity called
a debt. no matter what its origin or
antecedent history may be.
The decree was only left open
Judge Edgington said, so that the
collection of the judgment could be
enforced by execution if the sums were
not paid monthly and the question of
1alling Bond for contempt was not left
open nor could it be done"
He pointed out the difference be-
tween imprisonment for contempt for
failure to pay temporary alimonv and
permanent al9nony because in the mat
ter of temporary alimony the court has
the parties before 1t and grants such
orders as are necessary for the proper
preparation OF the case as the facts then
submitted warrant and it is the duty
or the court to enforce all such orders
Wy all puSSlplt means ana IL is q mere
order of court and not a final judg-
ment
Where permanent alimony is fixed"
Judge Edgington declared, land the
court provides a means for collecting
1t by execution, the case can not be re-
opened and other means adopted for
collecting the judgment. The case is
ended and the decree final for all pur-
poses except the collection of the debt
due the complainant by execution as
directed by the court.
Under the laws of Tennessee iudg-
ments OF this character can be collect ed
out of any future estate of the de-
PENDANT but they must be collected by
execution inasmuch as they are final
judgments.
THE only case in Tennessee" he
said further. where the defendant has
been Jailed for contempt for failure to
pay alimony are those where there was
failure to pay temporary alimony as
ordered by the court and there is no
case where man has been jailed for
contempt for failure to pay a final de-
cree. An execution can be issued for
each installment as 1t falls due but
it would be violation Of the Constitu-
tion to imprison him.
Chancellor Peres will render a deci-
sion in this matter in the near future
and the effect of it will be felt through
out the state. There are some 40 o.
more persons paying permanent ali
monY into the chanCery court and 9TH
ers in the circuit court.