Jacobs v. Jacobs

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Jacobs v. Jacobs

50 A.2d 491, 139 N.J. Eq. 193, 1947 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 129, 38 Backes 193

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedJanuary 15, 1947

DocketDocket 148/302

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.2d 491 (Jacobs v. Jacobs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacobs v. Jacobs, 50 A.2d 491, 139 N.J. Eq. 193, 1947 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 129, 38 Backes 193 (N.J. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

The complainant-wife instituted action by bill and writ of sequestration against the defendant-husband for an accounting. Without first obtaining leave of the court, the defendant entered a special appearance and filed an answer alleging to appear specially to the allegations contained in the bill. In said answer, defendant admitted his non-residence, and did not question the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery or the process thereof. Upon hearing the parties on the return of an order to show cause, duly made, an order was entered herein declaring defendant had appeared generally in the cause.

If defendant desires to appear specially and not have his appearance operate to clothe the court with jurisdiction over him generally in the suit, it seems he must obtain leave of *Page 194 the court to enter such an appearance. Allman v. UnitedBrotherhood, 79 N.J. Eq. 150; 81 Atl. Rep. 116; affirmed on opinion below, 79 N.J. Eq. 641; 83 Atl. Rep. 1118; Mellor v.Kaighn, 89 N.J. Law 543 (at p. 545); 99 Atl. Rep. 207 (atp. 208); Spoor-Thompson Co. v. Bennett, 105 N.J. Eq. 108 (at p. 112); 147 Atl. Rep. 202 (at p. 204); Swetland v.Swetland, 105 N.J. Eq. 608 (at p. 619); 149 Atl. Rep. 50 (at p. 55).

The provisions of the Sequestration Act (R.S. 2:29-99 and100) do not change the practice as to appearing specially in the Court of Chancery. These sections state only the effect of general and special appearances. *Page 195

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

The complainant-wife instituted action by bill and writ of sequestration against the defendant-husband for an accounting. Without first obtaining leave of the court, the defendant entered a special appearance and filed an answer alleging to appear specially to the allegations contained in the bill. In said answer, defendant admitted his non-residence, and did not question the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery or the process thereof. Upon hearing the parties on the return of an order to show cause, duly made, an order was entered herein declaring defendant had appeared generally in the cause.

If defendant desires to appear specially and not have his appearance operate to clothe the court with jurisdiction over him generally in the suit, it seems he must obtain leave of *Page 194 the court to enter such an appearance. Allman v. UnitedBrotherhood, 79 N.J. Eq. 150; 81 Atl. Rep. 116; affirmed on opinion below, 79 N.J. Eq. 641; 83 Atl. Rep. 1118; Mellor v.Kaighn, 89 N.J. Law 543 (at p. 545); 99 Atl. Rep. 207 (atp. 208); Spoor-Thompson Co. v. Bennett, 105 N.J. Eq. 108 (at p. 112); 147 Atl. Rep. 202 (at p. 204); Swetland v.Swetland, 105 N.J. Eq. 608 (at p. 619); 149 Atl. Rep. 50 (at p. 55).

The provisions of the Sequestration Act (R.S. 2:29-99 and100) do not change the practice as to appearing specially in the Court of Chancery. These sections state only the effect of general and special appearances. *Page 195

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.2d 491, 139 N.J. Eq. 193, 1947 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 129, 38 Backes 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-jacobs-njch-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack