Daggett v. Daggett

5 Paige Ch. 509, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 286, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 93
CourtNew York Court of Chancery
DecidedAugust 31, 1835
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 5 Paige Ch. 509 (Daggett v. Daggett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daggett v. Daggett, 5 Paige Ch. 509, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 286, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 93 (N.Y. 1835).

Opinion

The Chancellor

said, that so long as the marriage contract remained in force, the wife was not legally competent to make a valid contract with her husband in relation to her right to alimony; and that such agreements made in advance, if sanctioned by the court without examination, would have a tendency to produce collusion between parties with a view to the dissolution of the marriage contract between them. That such agreements, therefore, if the parties wished them to receive the sanction of the court, must be shown to be perfectly fair and equitable in regard to the wife’s right to a support out of the estate of the adulterer, or must be made after the bond of matrimony had actually been dissolved, as to the wife, by a decree of the court. The usual decree in this case was therefore directed, granting a divorce to the wife, with costs; and with liberty to apply to the court for further directions as to alimony, or for a reference to a master, to ascertain and report what was a suitable allowance to be made to her for that purpose.

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

Related

In Re the Accounting of Rhinelander
47 N.E.2d 681 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Rhinehart v. Rhinehart
75 P.2d 390 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1938)
Leonard v. Commissioner
36 B.T.A. 563 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1937)
Emerson v. Emerson
3 Balt. C. Rep. 214 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1912)
Wallace v. Wallace
67 A. 580 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1907)
Silberschmidt v. Silberschmidt
112 Ill. App. 58 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Forster v. Cantoni
19 Misc. 222 (New York Supreme Court, 1897)
Dailey v. Dailey
9 Misc. 511 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Schmieding v. Doellner
10 Mo. App. 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Speck v. Dausman
7 Mo. App. 165 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1879)
Campbell v. Campbell
37 Wis. 206 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1875)
Underwood v. Underwood
12 Fla. 434 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1868)
Reel v. Overall
39 Ala. 138 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1863)
Forrest v. Forrest
6 Duer 102 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1856)
Forest v. Forest
3 Abb. Pr. 144 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Paige Ch. 509, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 286, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daggett-v-daggett-nychanct-1835.