Anna Tappe, Inc. v. Battelle
In the Matter of Proceedings Supplementary to Execution under a Judgment in Favor of Anna Tappe, Inc., Judgment Creditor v. Mary Gittings Battelle, Judgment Debtor
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
It is well settled that alimony cannot be subjected to the claims of creditors when such claims antedate the allowance thereof. (Romaine v. Chauncey, 129 N. Y. 566 .) As to *50 judgment creditor’s claims arising after the allowance, particularly those for necessaries, the law appears to be that alimony is subject thereto. (Stevenson v. Stevenson, 34 Hun, 157 ; West v. Washburn, 153 App. Div. 460 ; Fickel v. Granger, 83 Ohio St. 101 ; Schouler Marr., Div., Sep. & Dom. Pel. [6th ed.] § 1754.) Therefore, assuming that the money due to the wife from the husband herein should be deemed to have the attributes of alimony despite the agreement under which it arose, it would appear available to this creditor. Of course, a court of equity might interfere in a proper case to the extent necessary to protect the sustenance of wife or children even as to a claim arising subsequent to the allowance.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Peters, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.