Von Laszewski v. Von Laszewski
| Decision Date | 07 May 1926 |
| Citation | 133 A. 179 |
| Parties | VON LASZEWSKI v. VON LASZEWSKI. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Suit by Anna May Von Laszewski against Arthur Von Laszewski for damages for personal injuries. On motion to strike out the bill. Motion granted.
Bleakly, Stockwell & Burling, of Camden, for the motion.
Thomas G. Tuso, of Vineland, opposed.
By the bill filed herein, a wife seeks to recover damages from her husband for personal injuries sustained by her through the negligence of her husband in the operation of his automobile. Defendant has appropriately moved to strike out the bill. The motion win be granted.
Neither at law nor in equity can an action be maintained by a wife against her husband for personal injuries. In equity a bill filed by a wife against her husband may be maintained for the protection or restoration of her separate estate; but, aside from certain relief in matrimonial causes based on fraud or want of assent in the matrimonial contract, neither in England nor in this country, except by statute, has the right of a married woman to maintain an action against her husband either at law or in equity been extended to the protection of personal as distinguished from property rights.
As to our Married Woman's Act (3 Comp. St. 1910, p. 3222), it is sufficient to say that, in the absence of a clear manifestation of legislative intent to effect so radical a change in our long-established rules in this respect, legislative purpose should not be declared by implication. But, even if deemed changed by implication, the right of action for unliquidated damages would necessarily be pursued in the courts of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.
...through the negligence of her husband could be prosecuted in equity. But on motion the complaint was stricken. Von Laszewski v. Von Laszewski, 99 N.J.Eq. 25, 133 A. 179 (Ch.1926). Vice-Chancellor Leaming said: 'Neither at law nor in equity can an action be maintained by a wife against her h......
-
Merenoff v. Merenoff
...369, 19 A. 622 (E. & A. 1899); Zansinger v. Zansinger, 46 N.J.L.J. 74 (Ch.1923), but not in tort. E. g., Von Laszewski v. Von Laszewski, 99 N.J.Eq. 25, 133 A. 179 (Ch.1926); Bendler v. Bendler, supra; Kennedy v. Camp, 14 N.J. 390, 102 A.2d 595 (1954); Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp., 27 N.J.......
-
Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice
... ... Christopher, 65 Wash. 496, 118 P. 629, 38 ... L.R.A.(N.S.) 780; Peters v. Peters, 156 Cal. 32, 103 ... P. 219, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 699; Van Laszewski v. Van Laszewski ... (N.J.) 133 A. 179 ... One who ... rides in an automobile as a gratuitous guest of the driver ... thereof ... ...
-
Staats v. Co-operative Transit Co.
... ... S.W.2d 1058; McLaurin v. McLaurin Furniture Co., 166 ... Miss. 180, 146 So. 877; Conley v. Conley, 92 Mont ... 425, 15 P.2d 922; Von Laszewski v. Von Laszewski, 99 ... N.J.Eq. 25, 133 A. 179; Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 ... Conn. 583, 131 A. 432, 44 A.L.R. 785; Gowin v. Gowin, ... ...