Borababy v. Borababy

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Borababy v. Borababy

37 A.2d 56, 135 N.J. Eq. 14, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 379

DecidedApril 13, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.2d 56 (Borababy v. Borababy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borababy v. Borababy, 37 A.2d 56, 135 N.J. Eq. 14, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 379 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a wife’s suit for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The husband seems to have left the state before suit was begun, and no notice to him as an absent defendant was served on him, though duly published. However, there was an order of reference to an advisory master, who proceeded to hear the proofs, and in connection therewith to inquire whether notice of the pendency of the suit had been given to the absent defendant in the manner provided by rule 277 of the Court of Chancery. Several affidavits were submitted to him, and in a written memorandum which is before us though not reported, he held that it had not been satisfactorily shown “that it was impracticable to give the defendant actual notice of this suit” (as required by the rule). We concur in his conclusion based on the proofs before him. In fact they show that appellant’s counsel succeeded in locating the defendant as employed in a Hoboken restaurant, where he could have been served with process but decamped on being told of the suit. Unfortunately that oral information does not satisfjr the rule above cited.

The dismissal of the petition, without prejudice, will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Wells, ■ Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a wife’s suit for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The husband seems to have left the state before suit was begun, and no notice to him as an absent defendant was served on him, though duly published. However, there was an order of reference to an advisory master, who proceeded to hear the proofs, and in connection therewith to inquire whether notice of the pendency of the suit had been given to the absent defendant in the manner provided by rule 277 of the Court of Chancery. Several affidavits were submitted to him, and in a written memorandum which is before us though not reported, he held that it had not been satisfactorily shown “that it was impracticable to give the defendant actual notice of this suit” (as required by the rule). We concur in his conclusion based on the proofs before him. In fact they show that appellant’s counsel succeeded in locating the defendant as employed in a Hoboken restaurant, where he could have been served with process but decamped on being told of the suit. Unfortunately that oral information does not satisfjr the rule above cited.

The dismissal of the petition, without prejudice, will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Wells, ■ Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 14.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.2d 56, 135 N.J. Eq. 14, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borababy-v-borababy-nj-1944.