Field v. Field
| Decision Date | 03 July 1928 |
| Citation | 142 A. 644 |
| Parties | FIELD v. FIELD. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Bill by Mary I. Field against Albert E. Field for an order for support and maintenance. Order to show cause dismissed.
John H. Switzer, of Camden, for complainant.
Patrick H. Harding, of Camden, for defendant.
LEAMING, Vice Chancellor. Complainant's bill is filed under section 26 of our Divorce Act (2 Comp. Stat. p. 2038) against defendant, as her husband, to procure an order for support and maintenance. By petition filed in the cause complainant now seeks an order for support pending final hearing.
The amended bill and petition disclose that defendant has procured in the state of Nevada a decree of divorce against her. That divorce she attacks as void in this state, alleging, among other things, fraud in its procurement. These averments of the bill and petition attacking the validity of the Nevada divorce decree are denied by defendant, except as to the averment that defendant did not reside in the state of Nevada for a period of two years prior to the divorce decree. In the recent case of Evelyne Schneider v. Walter F. Schneider, 142 A. 417 (not yet [officially] reported), I held that it is not within the intent of section 33 of our Divorce Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 2041, § 33) to deny recognition to a divorce decree of a sister state upon the sole ground that the party in whose favor such decree had been entered had not resided in that state for a period of two years. Accordingly, the only question here open to consideration at this time is whether in view of the sworn denial by defendant of all the averments in behalf of complainant which would, if true, deny to the Nevada decree recognition in this state, an order for support pendente lite should be made. That inquiry should be answered in the negative.
Complainant's right to support from defendant is wholly based upon her claim that she is his wife at this time, and by the terms of our statute that relationship between the parties is made the foundation of a bill of this nature. Accordingly, the fundamental issue now presented is whether complainant is the wife of defendant at this time. Since a decree of a court of a sister state has admittedly been entered dissolving the marriage, the burden is obviously on complainant to establish the alleged infirmities of that decree; but her averments of facts tending to impeach the decree are denied by defendant under oath. In Robinson v. Robinson, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peff v. Peff
...thereafter sue for separate maintenance and support. Magowan v. Magowan, 57 N.J.Eq. 195, 198, 39 A. 364 (Ch. 1898); Field v. Field, 103 N.J.Eq. 174, 142 A. 644 (Ch. 1928). In the latter case the court said: ‘Complainant's right to support from defendant is wholly based upon her claim that s......
-
Tonti v. Chadwick.
...The burden was on the counterclaimant to prove the marriage relationship; and in this, of course, she failed. Vide Field v. Field, Ch. 1928, 103 N.J.Eq. 174, 142 A. 644; Profenius v. Profenius, Ch.1918-1919,90 N.J.Eq. 45, 106 A. 144. In New York, the obligation of support has been enforced ......
-
Todd v. Policemen's & Firemen's Pension Fund of City of Newark
...right to thereafter sue for separate maintenance. Magowan v. Magowan, 57 N.J.Eq. 195, 198, 39 A. 364 (Ch. 1898); Field v. Field, 103 N.J.Eq. 174, 142 A. 644 (Ch. 1928). It appears manifest that Todd recognized plaintiff here as his wife regardless of his divorce obtained in Texas and his re......
-
Renner v. Renner
...between the parties hereto, the burden is obviously on petitioner to establish the alleged infirmities of that decree. Field v. Field, 103 N. J. Eq. 174, 142 A. 644. As to petitioner's contention that defendant was precluded from obtaining a domicile in Nevada because she was a fugutive fro......