Tholander v. Tholander
| Decision Date | 28 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. M--3314,M--3314 |
| Citation | 34 N.J.Super. 150,111 A.2d 643 |
| Parties | Alice Herbert THOLANDER, Plaintiff, v. Reinold M. THOLANDER, Defendant. . Chancery Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Hein, Smith & Mooney, Hackensack (Seymour A. Smith, Hackensack, appearing), for plaintiff.
Levenson & Levenson, Union City (Abe D. Levenson, Union City, appearing), for defendant.
Plaintiff, Alice Herbert Tholander, has brought suit against her husband, Reinold M. Tholander, for statutory separate maintenance and charges a constructive abandonment based upon alleged acts of extreme cruelty. The parties were married on May 9, 1943 and two children were born of the marriage--a boy and a girl--ages 10 and 9, respectively. Defendant, in answer, denied the allegations of extreme cruelty. Later, on application and by order of court, defendant filed supplemental answer and counterclaim. By way of supplement to answer in his first separate defense defendant charges plaintiff committed acts of adultery with one Irving B. Lake at times and places mentioned therein and alleges he has not condoned said acts of adultery since his discovery of same. By way of counterclaim for absolute divorce defendant charges plaintiff committed acts of adultery with one Irving B. Lake at the same times and places mentioned in his first separate defense. Plaintiff in reply to the first separate defense and in answer to counterclaim denies the commission of the acts of adultery as charged against her. In a first separate defense she avers defendant was guilty of extreme cruelty within the meaning of the statutes and law in such cases made and provided and her cause of action for extreme cruelty became vested to her prior to September 10, 1954, and pleads the defense of recrimination although she denies the adultery charged against her. Her second separate defense charges defendant wilfully, continuously and obstinately deserted her for more than two years preceding September 10, 1954 and pleads the defense of recrimination for the cause aforesaid, but denies the allegation of paragraph 4 of said counterclaim. The third separate defense alleges the said counterclaim does not set forth the charges in paragraph 4 in accordance with the rules and practice of this court and plaintiff will object to any testimony to be offered with respect thereto at the trial and reserves the right to seek a dismissal of the counterclaim at or before the trial.
The named corespondent, Irving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakewood Trust Co. of Lakewood v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.
...good cause is a flexible matter and must be determined by the court in each case on its own merits. Tholander v. Tholander, 34 N.J.Super. 150, 111 A.2d 643 (Ch.Div.1955). The court in deciding such matters should promote the liberal purpose and spirit of discovery under the new rules. Bead ......
-
Emerson v. A. E. Hotels, Inc.
...circumstances of each individual case and then to make its determination by exercising a sound discretion. See Tholander v. Tholander, 34 N.J.Super. 150, 111 A.2d 643, 644 (1955).3 Section 110(a) provides in part:"Title to Property."The trustee of the estate of a bankrupt . . . upon his . .......
-
Gerson v. Gerson
...R. 4:79--5. The term 'good cause shown' is flexible and each case for discovery must show its own good cause. Tholander v. Tholander, 34 N.J.Super. 150, 111 A.2d 643 (Ch.Div. 1955). However, the recent trend in general civil cases to broad and liberal discovery, Myers v. St. Francis Hospita......
-
Bermek v. City of Passaic
...on good cause shown. Ibid. "The term 'good cause shown' is flexible and its meaning is not fixed and definite." Tholander v. Tholander, 34 N.J. Super. 150, 152 (Ch. Div. 1955) (citation omitted).In deciding whether good cause has been shown for an extension of discovery in the absence of a ......