Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Uno Helgesson, Defendant, Appellant, v. Jeanne Helgesson, Plaintiff, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. - 295 F.2d 37
Oct. 13, 1961
Edward E. Cohen, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
James G. Walsh, Jr., Boston, Mass., with whom Sydney Berkman and Widett & Kruger, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity action on a foreign judgment for alimony the opinion of the district court, 1961, 196 F.Supp. 42, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment adequately disposed of the defenses advanced before that court. An additional defense is sought to be asserted here. The record shows that the defendant was aware of the existence of this defense, if in fact it is one, prior to the hearing on the motion. It is too late now, both because it is an affirmative defense and was not pleaded, and because it was not raised at the hearing by affidavit. The purpose of summary judgment procedure is prompt disposition, not second guessing on appeal.
Defendant also questions here the existence of the jurisdictional amount. It is, of course, never too late to do this. However, defendant fails to distinguish between alimony and support of minor children. There are two different matters. Cf. Commissioner v. Lester, 1961, 366 U.S. 299, 81 S.Ct. 1343, 6 L.Ed.2d 306. Current payments as to one cannot be used to discharge or offset the other. Under the terms of the judgment more than $10,000 in alimony was due and unpaid.
Affirmed.