Cole v. Cole
| Decision Date | 19 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 54/741.,54/741. |
| Citation | 124 A. 359 |
| Parties | COLE v. COLE. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Petition by Josephine Rose Cole against Levi K. Cole for alimony pendente lite. Petition denied.
Heine, Bradner & Laird, of Newark, for petitioner.
Walter D. Cougle, of Trenton, for defendant.
This is a petition for alimony pendente lite. The facts are as follows: The defendant, Levi K. Cole, instituted suit for divorce from his wife, the petitioner, in 1915 in the New Jersey Chancery Court. It was dismissed by Vice Chancellor Backes, 93 Atl. 708. Thereafter Cole went to Florida, to California, and then to Nevada. While living in Nevada, the defendant instituted a suit in Nevada for divorce. The petitioner filed an appearance and a cross-bill. The action came on to be tried, and defendant's petition was dismissed, and a divorce was granted to the petitioner in this case in accordance with the prayer of her counterclaim.
The petitioner's decree from the Nevada court was dated the 11th of January, 1918. After this, defendant went to California and remained about two years. He returned to the state of New Jersey in 1920 and has continued to reside here. In November, 1922, the defendant married again. On December 4, 1923, the petitioner filed this suit for divorce and makes application for alimony pendente lite. The exemplified copy of the proceedings in the Nevada court which is before me states that the petitioner in that case was a bona fide resident of the state of Nevada. The question that arises, therefore, is: Was the decree of the Nevada court valid and effectual in dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the defendant? I think the case is governed by the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals in Fairchild v. Fairchild, 53 N. J. Eq. 678, 34 Atl. 10, 51 Am. St. Rep. 650. In that case the court, speaking through Chief Justice Gummere, said:
"Where the plaintiff in a cause is required by statute to have been a bona fide resident of the state in which his action is brought for a fixed period of time, in order to enable him to maintain his action, the ascertainment by the court of the fact of such residence necessarily precedes a consideration of the merits of the case; and the determination of that question by the court is final, not only in the courts of that state, but in every other jurisdiction where the validity of the judgment comes in question, unless such determination has been procured by fraud."
There is no allegation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sherrer v. Sherrer Coe v. Coe
...246, 273 N.W. 708; Miller v. Miller, Sup., 1946, 65 N.Y.S.2d 696, affirmed, 1947, 271 App.Div. 974, 67 N.Y.S.2d 379; Cole v. Cole, 1924, 96 N.J.Eq. 206, 124 A. 359. 26 Broderick v. Rosner, 1935, 294 U.S. 629, 642, 55 S.Ct. 589, 592, 79 L.Ed. 1100, 100 A.L.R. 1133; Williams v. North Carolina......
-
Sprague v. Sprague
...the adjudication by the foreign court of the fact of domicile is conclusive, unless that adjudication was procured by fraud. Cole v. Cole, 96 N.J.Eq. 206, 124 A. 359; Pahy v. Pahy, 107 N.J.Eq. 538, 540, 153 A. 519; Ballentine v. Ballentine, 112 N.J.Eq. 222, 226, 164 A. 5; Reik v. Reik, 112 ......
-
Tonti v. Chadwick.
...678, 34 A. 10, 51 Am.St.Rep. 650; Magowan v. Magowan, Err. & App. 1898, 57 N.J.Eq. 322, 42 A. 330, 73 Am.St.Rep. 645; Cole v. Cole, Ch.1924, 96 N.J.Eq. 206, 124 A. 359; Feickert v. Feickert, Ch.1925-1926, 98 N.J.Eq. 444, 131 A. 576. If a decree of divorce of a foreign country embodies all t......