Bowers v. Bowers

⁴⁵⁴ Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The parties to this appeal were married in July, 1916, and separated a short time thereafter. One child was bom, — a girl named Dorothy Bowers. After the separation the husband, the appellant on this record, brought suit against Mrs. Nannie E. H'elfenstein, the mother of the appellee, to recover damages for the alienation of his wife’s affections.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for five thousand dollars. Pending a motion for a new trial, á settlement of the litigation was made. The terms and conditions of the settlement are embodied in an agreement under seal, dated the 8th day of May, 1917, and signed by the appellant and his wife, and Nannie E. Helfenstein, the defendant in the alienation suit. . The following is one of the provisions of the agreement: “And the said Ruth Helfenstein Bowers does hereby forever release and exonerate and discharge the said William D. Bowers from all claim, liability, or demand, either at law or in equity, against him the said William D. Bowers, her husband, for or on account of the support, maintenance or any allowance for said support or maintenance, of herself and her said infant child, horn of said marriage, hereby obligating herself to support and maintain said infant child, and the said Ruth Helfenstein Bowers further agrees that she will not hereafter bring any suit or institute any proceed-ings of any kind to compel the said William D. Bowers, to pay, support, maintenance or alimony either for the support of herself or said infant child.” On the 26th of October, 1917, — a little over five months after the execution of the agreement, — Mrs. Bowers filed a bill for divorce in the Circuit Court for Frederick County against her husband charging him with adultery.

An answer was filed, testimony .taken, and in due course the case came on for final hearing. The husband did not file the agreement in the case, hut it was submitted to the Court 'and considered by the Court. On the 21st day of March, 1918, the Court passed a decree by which •the wife, Ruth Helfenstein Bowers, ⁴⁵⁵ was divorced a vinculo matrimonii from William D. Bowers, the husband, and it further “ordered and decreed that the said William D. Bowers, the defendant, will pay unto the plaintiff, Ruth Helfensteiu Bowers, a weekly allowance of two and a half dollars to he computed from the 21st day of March, 1918, and payable thereafter monthly, for the support and maintenance of the infant child of the plaintiff and defendant, and subject to the further order of the Court as to the amount and terms of such allowance.” .No appeal was taken from, that decree. Ota. the 14th of April, 1919, Mrs. Bowers, filed a petition in the ease in which, after stating that she continued to have the custody and maintenance of the infant child (which had been awarded her under the decree of March 21, 1917), and for whose support her husband had been directed to pay her the sum specified in the decree for the support of the child, alleged: “That the sum of two dollars and fifty cents per week is not sufficient for the maintenance and support of said infant, and your petitioner is obliged to expend a larger sum of money for its support each week, without any assistance from William D. Bowers, the father of said infant. “Wherefore your petitioner prays that your Honors will pass the order of your Honorable Court directing the said William D. Bowers to pay unto your petitioner as the mother and custodian of said infant a sum ol money not less than five dollars per