Halstead v. Halstead
| Decision Date | 25 September 1908 |
| Parties | HALSTEAD v. HALSTEAD. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by Rachel Halstead against David Henry Halstead. Final hearing on bill, answer, and proofs in open court. Decree for complainant advised.
Ralph W. Skinner, for complainant.
Archibald C. Hart, for defendant.
The parties to this suit are husband and wife, and the bill is filed for the purpose of obtaining a decree against the defendant for money alleged to be due to the complainant by virtue of an agreement between the parties. The agreement in question is dated June 21, 1904, and is to be read in connection with a previous agreement between the parties. Taken together, these agreements provide for the parties living separate, and that the defendant should pay to the complainant the sum of $7 a week in full of all claims for the support, maintenance, and clothing of herself and children; she upon her part agreeing to receive and take the same in full satisfaction for her support and maintenance and all alimony whatever, and that she "shall not, nor will at any time or times hereafter, ask or demand of or from the party of the first part [the defendant here] any payment or allowance other than the payment or allowance last herein above provided for. * * *"
The defendant made payments under this agreement up to and including the 31st of October, 1904, and one subsequent payment of $7 in November of that year. On the 7th of March, 1905, the complainant commenced an action for divorce against the defendant on the ground of desertion and adultery, and on the 20th day of November, 1905, on the motion of her solicitor, an order was made in the divorce suit that the defendant pay to her, for the support and maintenance of herself and children, pending the determination of said suit for divorce, the sum of $5 per week from the date of said order to the date of taking proofs. The present demand of the complaiuant is for the sum of $7 per week from the 31st of October, 1904, with a credit of $7 for one payment made in November, up to the 20th day of November, 1905, and for the sum of $2 per week from the lastmentioned date to the date of the filing of the bill or the date of the final decree, as the court might determine this question. This sum of $2 is the difference between the $7 provided for in the agreement and the $5 provided for in the order for alimony pendente lite in the divorce suit.
The defendant contends, first, that the institution of the suit for divorce abrogated the written engagement or agreement between the parties. It is the law of this case that it does not. A demurrer was filed to the bill and Chancellor Magie, in an opinion filed in this suit on the 19-th of July, 1907, in overruling the demurrer, held that "the Institution and continuance of that suit [the divorce suit] Is not a bar to a bill to enforce the agreement for support." That this decision of the Chancellor is supported by authorities will appear from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schlemm v. Schlemm
...v. Buttlar, 57 N.J.Eq. 645, 652, 42 A. 755 (E. & A.1899); Buttlar v. Buttlar, supra, 71 N.J.Eq. 671, 65 A. 485; Halstead v. Halstead, 74 N.J.Eq. 596, 598, 70 A. 928 (Ch.1908); Dennison v. Dennison, supra; cf. Cohen v. Cohen, 121 N.J.Eq. 299, 188 A. 244 (Ch.1936); Harrington v. Harrington, 1......
-
Schiff v. Schiff
...Dennison v. Dennison, 93 N.J.Eq. 230, 130 A. 463 (Ch.1925), aff'd 99 N.J.Eq. 883, 133 A. 919 (E. & A. 1926); Halstead v. Halstead, 74 N.J.Eq. 596, 70 A. 928 (Ch.1908); Buttlar v. Buttlar, 71 N.J.Eq. 671, 65 A. 485 (Ch.1906); Vandegrift v. Vandegrift, 63 N.J.Eq. 124, 51 A. 200 (Ch.1902); Moc......
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...(Chancery, 1901) 62 N.J.Eq. 570, 50 A. 182; Buttlar v. Buttlar (Chancery, 1906) 71 N.J.Eq. 671, 65 A. 485; Halstead v. Halstead (Chancery, 1908) 74 N.J.Eq. 596, 70 A. 928; Rennie v. Rennie (Chancery, 1915) 85 N.J.Eq. 1, 95 A. 571, 572; Boehm v. Boehm (Chancery, 1917— 1918) 88 N.J.Eq. 74, 10......
-
Flicker v. Chenitz, A--69
...the wife's right to enforce an agreement otherwise valid, if fair and equitable to the parties in all respects. Cf. Halstead v. Halstead, 74 N.J.Eq. 596, 70 A. 928 (Ch.1908); Cohen v. Cohen, 121 N.J.Eq. 299, 322--323, 188 A. 244 (Ch.1936); Raymond v. Raymond, supra, 39 N.J.Super., at page 3......