[Indexed as: Tinsley, Douglas G., “Says Court Can’t Collect Alimony – Kansas City Judge Holds It Is Same Category with Any Other Legal Debt,” Coshocton Tribune (Oh.), Apr. 19, 1923]
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Apr. 19. – In future divorced husbands on whom wives make various and sundry demands for alimony duty allowed them by the court can politely tell their ex-spouses to politely “step to” if a decision handed down here recently by Judge Samuel A. Drew in Circuit Court is given country-wide application.
Several months ago Judge Dew allowed Mrs. Elizabeth Brown $20 a month alimony and awarded her attorneys $50 fees to be paid by Brown. Recently Mrs. Brown came before Judge Drew, alleging her husband had paid only $15 of the $50 attorney fee.
She asked that Brown be placed in jail for contempt of court until such time as he paid back the $35 balance due in alimony fees.
Judge Drew refused to commit Brown to jail and ruled that even tho a court allows a wife alimony that court or any other court was powerless to force payment of the judgment by putting the husband in jail.
“Even tho the alimony allowance is a court order, it is nothing more than a debt and must be collected the same as any other debt,” Judge Drew said. “The court cannot jail the husband for contempt for not paying the debt.”
Under Judge Dew’s ruling, were it to be accepted nationally, the famous “Alimony Jail” – Ludlow street jail, New York – the San Francisco “Alimony Club House,” and other famous alimony jails would be closed.