Dixon v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 27 April 1907 |
| Citation | 72 N.J.E. 588,66 A. 597 |
| Parties | DIXON v. DIXON. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Petition by William H. Dixon against Josephine T. Dixon for the modification of a judgment relating to the custody of certain children. Continued for further hearing.
R. V. Lindabury, for petitioner. Gilbert Collins, for defendant
On June 1, 1905, William H. Dixon, the petitioner, filed his petition in this court, alleging that he and the defendant were married on January 30, 1901, in the city of New York, and that they lived together in that city until May 3, 1904, when his wife left him and went to live at her father's residence there; that they have two children, viz., William P., born March 19, 1902, and Barbara W., born April 30, 1903; that on June 8, 1904, the defendant took the children to Madison, in this state, to live with her in a house provided by her father, at which place she had resided ever since. The petition alleged the father's willingness to provide for her children, and stated that he had difficulty in obtaining access to them. The prayer was for a writ of habeas corpus, to the end that an order might be made awarding their custody to the petitioner for the whole or a portion of the time, or for such other order with respect to their care and custody as should be just. The defendant answered, denying that her father was a resident of New York, and averring that he had for several years been a citizen of New Jersey, with a home at Madison, where he resided during the greater portion of each year. She denied that she and petitioner had lived in the city of New York up to May 3, 1904, and averred that they had lived together in Madison during the summer of 1901, and that in May, 1903, petitioner having gone away for his health, she and her children had gone to her father's house, in that town, and that in September, 1903, she and the petitioner, together with her children, after remaining a few days at her father's house in Madison, had taken possession of a neighboring house there, where they had continued to reside during the winter, and that she and her children had continued to live there ever since, except for a short interval. It will thus be seen that at the commencement of the proceeding and for two years prior thereto the defendant and her children had been residents of New Jersey. To the answer petitioner filed a replication and the case was heard on the merits. The court decreed as follows: The petitioner appealed from this decree and on December 3, 1906, it was affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals. Its correctness and propriety in all its parts is therefore beyond controversy.
On February 13, 1907, William H. Dixon filed a supplemental petition, stating most of the foregoing facts, and alleging that he had been permitted to have access to his children pursuant to the terms of the order up to Saturday, January 26, 1907, but that on the 8th day of February, 1907, he was notified by her father that defendant had "moved" from Madison to Portland, and, on February 11th, that his wife and children were at the Lafayette Hotel, in that city. The first letter stated that it would be convenient (to Mrs. Dixon) that Mr. Dixon should see the children there, by appointment, as usual. The petitioner states that he is engaged in business in the city of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartlett v. Bartlett
...513, 191 P. 671; Griffin v. Griffin, 95 Or. 78, 187 P. 598; Ex parte Barnes, 54 Or. 548, 104 P. 296, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 172; Dixon v. Dixon, 72 N.J. Eq. 588, 66 A. 597; Schultz v. Brown, Texas, 152 S.W. (2d) 801; People v. Glendening, 259 App. Div. 384, 19 N.Y.S. (2d) 693; Ex parte Hoines, Ne......
-
Hatch v. Hatch
...and comity, require that this court keep hands off. See In re Caruso's Guardianship, 101 N.J.Eq. 215, 218, 137 A. 154; Dixon v. Dixon, 72 N.J.Eq. 588, 591, 66 A. 597; Id., 76 N.J.Eq. 364, 74 A. 995; Hersey v. Hersey, 271 Mass. 545, 171 N.E. 815, 70 A.L.R. 518; In re Erving, 109 N.J.Eq. 294,......
-
Ex parte Erving
...Errors and Appeals. 71 N. J. Eq. 281, 71 A. 1133. Subsequently the mother removed to Maine. A second order was then made by this court (72 N. J. Eq. 588. 66 A. 597), which was acquiesced in and obeyed until the mother instituted a divorce proceeding in Maine. This court said that, notwithst......
-
Cook v. Cook
...Master concluded as a fact that the husband was a resident of Pennsylvania and with this finding we are in accord. In Dixon v. Dixon, 72 N.J.Eq. 588, 591, 66 A. 597, 598, the learned Vice Chancellor said, "The word 'moved' is somewhat indefinite. It may or may not, according to circumstance......