Daggett v. Daggett

5 Paige Ch. 509, 1835 N.Y. LEXIS 286, 1835 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 93
New York Court of Chancery·Decided August 31, 1835·Published·Cited by 16 cases

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

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

5 Paige Ch. 509 (Daggett v. Daggett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)