Munger v. Munger, A--739
| Decision Date | 18 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A--739,A--739 |
| Citation | 24 N.J.Super. 574,95 A.2d 153 |
| Parties | MUNGER v. MUNGER. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Meyer L. Sakin, Camden, for respondent and cross-appellant.
Walter S. Keown, Camden, for appellant and cross-respondent.
Before Judges EASTWOOD, BIGELOW and JAYNE.
Except in the detail mentioned below, the judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the Chancery Division by Judge Burton, whose opinion is reported at 21 N.J.Super. 49, 90 A.2d 539 (1952). We might add, with reference to the defense of laches, that Baumgarten v. Baumgarten, 107 N.J.Eq. 274, 151 A. 606, 608 (Ch.1930).
Considering all the factors in the situation, we find that the counsel fee allowed to the wife in the Chancery Division should be increased by the sum of $1,000. The wife's taxed costs on the appeals, including a counsel fee of $750, should be charged against her husband. Let there be a judgment accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martindell v. Martindell
...of alimony from $300 to $550 per month. Cf. Munger v. Munger, 21 N.J.Super. 49, 57, 90 A.2d 539 (Ch.1952), affirmed 24 N.J.Super. 574, 95 A.2d 153 (App.Div.1953). Nor do we find any error in his action which made the increase retroactive to October 19, 1953. The court had authority to grant......
-
Koch v. Koch
...Munger v. Munger, 21 N.J.Super. 49, 53, 90 A.2d 539 (Ch.Div.1952), affirmed o.b. on this point, modified on other grounds 24 N.J.Super. 574, 95 A.2d 153 (App.Div.1953); Paragian v. Paragian, 48 N.J.Super. 207, 137 A.2d 104 (J. & D.R.Ct.1957); Falzo v. Falzo, 84 N.J.Super. 343, 202 A.2d 192 ......
-
Ricci v. Ricci
...N.J. 268, 273, 274, 72 A.2d 318 (1950), and Munger v. Munger, 21 N.J.Super. 49, 57, 90 A.2d 539 (Ch.Div. 1952), affirmed 24 N.J.Super. 574, 95 A.2d 153 (App.Div. 1953). Therefore, the tendency would seem to be to dispense with fixed rules and to decide each case upon its own peculiar circum......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...for divorce, will excuse the abandonment. Munger v. Munger, 21 N.J.Super. 49, 90 A.2d 539 (Ch.Div. 1952), modified in 24 N.J.Super. 574, 95 A.2d 153 (App.Div.1953). In McNeel v. McNeel, 126 N.J.Eq. 255, 257--258, 8 A.2d 572 (E. & A.1939), it was held that either adultery or extreme cruelty ......