Grice, Justice.
There is no merit in an exception to a judgment as contrary to law, when, on a hearing on a rule for contempt against the former husband for refusal to pay alimony, it appeared that although the final decree in the divorce case provided for payment of $60 per month for five years, the parties made a new contract in which it was recited that notwithstanding -all monthly payments had been made to that date, according to the original contract and decree of the court, the wife desired to accept a cash settlement in lieu of the extended monthly payments provided for in said decree, which new contract specified the payment of $500 in cash and the delivery to her of a promissory note for $325, the latter to he discharged by payments of $40 per month, and that in view of this new agreement she expressly released the husband from any and all further liability; and there being competent evidence before the judge to the effect that subsequently to said last agreement, the $500 specified therein having been paid, the former husband, after the maturity of the $325 note above referred to, paid to his former wife $175 in cash, which she accepted in settlement of the note, which had been misplaced or lost; whereupon, after considering the pleadings and the evidence, the judge passed orders revoking a previous order that a fi. fa. issue against defendant, finding that he was not in contempt, and ordering the rule discharged.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
William 8. Shelf er, for plaintiff.
Swift Tyler and W. E. Armistead, for defendant.