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.