Lutz v. Lutz
Decision Date | 13 January 1894 |
Citation | 52 N.J.B. 241,28 A. 315 |
Parties | LUTZ v. LUTZ. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Petition by Christian Lutz against Louisa Lutz for divorce. Petitioner moves for leave to file a supplemental petition. Motion granted.
Abner Kalisch, for petitioner.
R. Coleman, for defendant.
GREEN, V. C. Application is made by the solicitor of petitioner for leave to file a supplemental petition for the purpose of charging adultery committed by the defendant subsequent to the alleged condonation, by the petitioner, of the previously charged act of adultery, and subsequent to the commencement of the suit. It is undoubtedly the rule, in general, that leave will not be granted to file a supplemental bill or petition setting up subsequent acts of adultery, (Milner v. Milner, 2 Edw. Ch. 114;) and this proceeds on the ground that the acts charged—each of them—constitute a cause of action, and that there is no dependence of one upon the other. This rule, however, does not apply in this case, for there is a direct connection between the original cause of action and that contemplated by this application. Condonation is conditional forgiveness of a matrimonial offense, which may be destroyed by the commission of another matrimonial offense, even of a lesser degree. The condition is that the one forgiven will treat the injured one with conjugal affection and kindness, and any violation of this condition will revive the cause of action which was before forgiven. When condonation is interposed as a defense, it is an answer to this that the condition inherent in the condonation has been broken by the commission of a subsequent matrimonial offense; and so there is a direct connection between the two alleged offenses. If not pleaded, it might be justly objected to on the ground of surprise. If it had happened before the commencement of the suit, it might be incorporated by amendment, but, if after, can be introduced by a supplemental bill or petition. The motion should be granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Soos v. Soos
...A. 1029, affirmed on main case 52 N.J. Eq. 332, 31 A. 724; Daly v. Watson, 118 N.J.Eq. 258, 178 A. 781; see Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N.J.Eq. 241, 28 A. 315. On the contrary, their inclusion in the petition may elicit admissions of value to petitioner, and will certainly tend to eliminate surprise a......
-
Smith v. Smith.
...petition for the purpose of charging acts of adultery committed subsequent to the filing of the original divorce petition. Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N.J.Eq. 241, 28 A. 315; Milner v. Milner, 2 Edw.Ch.,N.Y., 114; Schwab v. Schwab, 96 Md. 592, 54 A. 653, 94 Am.St.Rep. 598; Renner v. Renner, 177 Md. 68......
-
Edwards v. Edwards
... ... It is an answer to condonation for ... adultery that there have been subsequent acts of violation of ... the marriage vows. In the case of Lutz v. Lutz, 52 ... N.J.Eq. 241, 28 A. 315, the court held that where condonation ... is interposed as a defense to an action for divorce on the ... ...
-
Edwards v. Edwards
...for adultery that there have been subsequent acts of violation of the marriage vows. In the case of Lutz v. Lutz, 52 N. J. Eq. 241, 28 A. 315, the court held that where condonation is interposed as a defense to an action for divorce on the ground of adultery, the plaintiff may file a supple......