Rosecrans v. Rosecrans
| Decision Date | 11 February 1926 |
| Citation | 132 A. 100 |
| Parties | ROSECRANS v. ROSECRANS. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Bill for accounting by H. Rae Scull Rosecrans against Paul C. Rosecrans. Decree for complainant.
Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, for complainant.
Lewis Starr, of Camden, for defendant.
The complainant and defendant are husband and wife, living in Atlantic City, N. J. The testimony indicated the defendant to be well versed in the hotel business; that while he is able to operate a hotel in an apparently successful manner, he had not prior to the present venture been able to conduct his business in a manner to show financial success. The wife is an active and energetic woman with the ability to save money, and appears to have considerable financial standing.
They first became associated after he had failed in the conduct of the Hotel Lexington in Atlantic City, and the creditors or seme of them were operating the hotel with him as manager, and with her as cashier and auditor. Apparently, she was placed there as a check over or upon him. They afterwards became connected, to some extent at least, in the operation of another hotel. The testimony showed that even before their marriage she had loaned him money. They were married September 10, 1918.
Some time in the fall of 1919 an agreement was entered into between one Charles B. Prettyman and the complainant and defendant, wherein Prettyman agreed to convey to them a hotel in Atlantic City, known as the Princess. This agreement resulted in a conveyance by Prettyman and wife to Paul C. Rosecrans and Rae Scull Rosecrans, his wife, of said hotel property, together with certain furnishings therein contained. This deed was dated December 1, 1919, and recorded in the clerk's office of Atlantic county in Book No. 621 of Deeds, page 14, etc.
The bill further alleges that the defendant is in actual control of said premises (with the exception of one bedroom occupied by the complainant), and that he is conducting therein the hotel business, and excludes "complainant from the use, enjoyment, rents, issues, profits, or usufruct thereof," and refuses "to pay complainant any sum of money as the proceeds of said business, or as the rental value of her one-half interest in said premises," and prays: (1) For an accounting of all rents he has received; (2) for the rental value of the premises; (3) that a receiver be appointed; (4) that he be decreed to pay complainant amount found to be due.
The answer alleges that the property was purchased by the defendant, that he borrowed of the complainant approximately $8,000 and the title was taken in the joint names as security to her for the said loan, and that the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turro v. Turro
...N.J.Eq. 367, 369, 127 A. 346 (E. & A.1925); Mullen v. Mullins, 98 N.J.Eq. 728, 130 A. 628, 629 (E. & A.1925); Rosecrans v. Rosecrans, 99 N.J.Eq. 176, 178, 132 A. 100 (Ch.1926), affirmed109 N.J.Eq. 137, 156 A. 429 (E. & A.1931); Chard v. Chard, 104 N.J.Eq. 443, 444, 146 A. 184 (E. & A.1929);......
-
Witzel v. Witzel
...Towers, 3 Harr. & J. 147, 5 Am.Dec. 427; Fladung v. Rose, 58 Md. 13; Sanderson v. Everson, 93 Neb. 606, 141 N.W. 1025; Rosecrans v. Rosecrans, 99 N.J.Eq. 176, 132 A. 100; Taylor v. Lowencamp, 104 N.J.Eq. 302, 145 A. 329; Jooss v. Fey, 129 N.Y. 17, 29 N.E. 136; Wurz v. Wurz, Sup., 15 N.Y.S. ......
-
Walnut Valley State Bank v. Stovall
...617, 160 A. 831; Dover Trust Co. v. Brooks, 111 N.J.Eq. 40, 160 A. 890; McGee v. McGee, 81 N.J.Eq. 190, 86 A. 406; Rosecrans v. Rosecrans, 99 N.J.Eq. 176, 132 A. 100; Mendelsohn v. Mendelsohn, 106 N.J.Eq. 537, 151 A. 487." (p. 98, 196 A. p. A similar result has been reached in Michigan. In ......
-
Rayher v. Rayher
...wife pays the consideration. Pieretti v. Seigling, 134 N.J.Eq. 105, 34 A.2d 286 (Ch.1943). Or the husband pays it. Rosecrans v. Rosecrans, 99 N.J.Eq. 176, 132 A. 100 (Ch.1926), affirmed109 N.J.Eq. 137, 156 A. 429 (E. & A.1931). It is generally considered immaterial that one spouse, be it th......