p. 243defendant to pay her the sum of $4,000 per annum during her life for the support and maintenance of herself and children. The decree further required defendant to execute a bond in the sum of $10,000 to secure such payment. Defendant has filed the bond and made the payments required by the decree. The right was not reserved in the decree to make a further application for a modification of the terms thereof.
In 1899 an application tending to show quite a serious change in his financial circumstances was made by defendant for the modification of the decree as to the amount to be paid for the maintenance of plaintiff and the children. The motion was denied for want of statutory authority ( 46 App. Div. 18 ). Section 1759 of the Code of Civil Procedure was thereafter amended by chapter 742 of the Laws of 1900, so as to authorize the court on application to vary or modify the direction contained in such judgments, whether theretofore or thereafter rendered, as to the payment of moneys for the support and maintenance of a wife and children. After this amendment the defendant renewed his application, and the court thereupon appointed a referee to take proof of the present circumstances of the parties and to report with his opinion thereon. The appeal is from this order of reference.
A. H. Hummel, for the appellant.
J. Yam Yechten Olcott, for the respondent.
It is sought by this appeal to have the court pass upon the constitutionality of the amendment to section 1759 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by which the Legislature has authorized the courts upon notice and proof, to vary or modify the direction contained in a final judgment of divorce theretofore rendered with respect to the payment required to be made by the husband for the support and maintenance of his wife and children. The order is interlocutory and we decline to pass upon this constitutional question at the present time. (People ex rel. Trowbridge v. McNamara, 18 App. Div. 17 ; People ex rel. Iselin v. Tilford, 23 id. 625.) It is not necessarily involved in the case. The proof may satisfy the court that the decree should not be modified even if the power to modify
p. 244exists. The reference should be permitted to proceed, and the motion should be heard upon the merits; then, if the constitutional question necessarily arises, it may with propriety be authoritatively decided.
The appeal should be dismissed, but without costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.
Appeal dismissed, without costs.