Pahy v. Pahy

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Pahy v. Pahy, 107 N.J.Eq. 538, 153 A. 519 (N.J. 1931)
• Decision Date: 02 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 24.,24.
• Parties: IRMA PAHY v. JOHN PAHY

153 A. 519

PAHY

v. PAHY.

No. 24.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 2, 1931.

Suit for divorce by Irma Pahy against John Pahy. From decree dismissing the bill, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Robert D. Grosman, of Newark, for appellant.

Milton M. Unger, of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Irma Pahy, the present appellant, filed a petition for divorce against her husband, John, the present respondent, basing her right to a decree upon the ground that her husband had been guilty of adultery. The following facts are not disputed: The parties were married in 1912, and lived together in New Jersey until November, 1922. In that month the petitioner left her husband and went to Hungary, where she remained for some time, returning in July, 1924. After her return she lived with her husband for a few days, and he then left her, went to Chicago, took up his abode there, then moved to Salt Lake City, where he remained a short time and then took up his residence in Nevada. After having lived in the latter state for the statutory period provided by the laws thereof, he instituted divorce proceedings against his wife in the second judicial district court of that state. Jurisdiction over the petitioner was obtained by publication in accordance with the statute of that state. A true copy of the summons was also served upon her at her residence in New Jersey. The case in due course came on for trial, Mrs. Pahy not being present, and the hearing resulted in the granting of a divorce to the present respondent. About a month after he had obtained his divorce he left Nevada and went to New York to live, and about two weeks after he took up his residence in that state he married again. The charge of adultery made by Mrs. Pahy is based upon the theory that the decree of divorce granted to the present respondent was obtained by fraud, and was therefore a nullity; and that, consequently, the woman with whom he went through the marriage ceremony in New York was an adulteress because of her living with him as his wife. The hearing in the present case resulted in a dismissal of the petition filed by Irma Pahy against the present respondent upon the ground that the proofs preponderated in favor of the conclusion that the respondent did not take up his residence in the state of Nevada for the purpose of obtaining a divorce; that the Nevada court had jurisdiction over the parties; and that the decree of that court was not procured by the present respondent...