Opinion
November 20, 1929.
December 12, 1929.
Courts — Jurisdiction — Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23 — Petitions — Dismissal — Appeal.
In an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a special allowance for attorney's fees and expenses in a divorce proceeding, it appeared that the libellant had procured a divorce by means of fraud, and that subsequently, the decree of divorce had been vacated and annulled. The respondent filed a petition under the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, raising the question of the jurisdiction of the Court, which was dimissed. No appeal was taken and perfected within fifteen days of the date of the decision dismissing his petition. In such case, the appeal will be quashed.
An appeal from the dismissal of a petition, under the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court over the defendant, or of the cause of action, must be taken and perfected within fifteen days of the date of the decision dismissing his petition. Otherwise the appeal will be quashed.
Courts — Fraud perpetrated upon them — Litigation — Costs — Courts refusal of aid to collect them.
Persons guilty of attempting to perpetrate a fraud on a Court will not have its aid in the collection of counsel fees or expenses incurred in the litigation.
Appeal No. 321, October T., 1929, by defendant from decree of C.P., Bradford County, September T., 1921, No. 226, in the case of Elizabeth Willetts v. Frank Willetts.
Before PORTER, P.J., TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Appeal quashed.
Petition for allowance of counsel fees and expenses. Before EVANS, P.J., of the 26th Judicial District, specially presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed defendant's petition raising the question of jurisdiction of the court. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, was the order of the court.
Fred B. Gernerd, and with him Rodney A. Mercur, for appellant.
J. Roy Lilley, of Lilley Wilson, and with him W.H.K. Davey and Burger Burger, for appellee.
Argued November 20, 1929.
Following the judgment of this court in Willetts v. Willetts, 96 Pa. Super. 198, vacating and annulling the decree of divorce granted by the court of common pleas of Bradford County because of fraud practised on the court, the libellant presented her petition to the court below asking for the allowance to her of counsel fees and expenses in the sum of $40,000 to be paid by her husband, the respondent. A rule to show cause was granted, service of which was accepted by the respondent's attorney of record.
The respondent then presented his petition raising the question of jurisdiction, under the Act of March 5, 1925, P.L. 23, which the court below, after argument, dismissed. This appeal followed, but as it was not "taken and perfected within fifteen days from the date when the decision [was] rendered," the appeal must be quashed.
To avoid unnecessary prolongation of the matter in the court below and further appeal to this court, we deem it proper to state that we are of one mind in the conclusion that this is not a proper case for the granting by the courts of this Commonwealth of any allowance for counsel fees and expenses to be paid by either party to the other. Both of them were equally concerned and equally guilty in the attempt to secure a divorce in this Commonwealth by fraud and perjury. The judgment of this court, above referred to, vacating and annulling the divorce thus corruptly obtained, was entered solely to vindicate the Commonwealth, an interested party in all divorce suits brought within its borders, and purge its court records of a decree fraudulently and corruptly secured by one not within its jurisdiction and not entitled to its process, and not because the libellant and petitioner was an innocent and injured party. She was just as deep in the mud of this conspiracy to impose on the court as her husband was in its mire, and is in no position to invoke its aid to relieve her from the purely personal consequences of her acts. Apart from purging its records of the fraudulent decree, illegally obtained because of want of jurisdiction of the parties, the Commonwealth will leave those guilty of the fraud attempted to be perpetrated on its courts where they have placed themselves.
The appeal is quashed.