Johnson v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Johnson v. Johnson

61 A.2d 180, 142 N.J. Eq. 728

DecidedSeptember 5, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.2d 180 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 61 A.2d 180, 142 N.J. Eq. 728 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by Alfred C. Johnson, defendant, from a decree of the Court of Chancery,, awarding separate maintenance to complainant, Ina M. Johnson, his wife, and ordering him to pay to the complainant the sum of $25 per week and allowing her in addition to occupy-premises in Newark owned by the parties hereto under conditions referred to in the decree. We are in accord with the findings and opinion of the Court of Chancery, with the exception that the decree should be modified so as to provide for a payment to complainant of $20 per week instead of $25 per week. The decree appealed from is so modified and as modified is affirmed.

For■ modification — The Chief-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Cons, Wachenfeed, Eastwood, Bubling, Jacobs, Wells, Dill, Feeund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 14.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by Alfred C. Johnson, defendant, from a decree of the Court of Chancery,, awarding separate maintenance to complainant, Ina M. Johnson, his wife, and ordering him to pay to the complainant the sum of $25 per week and allowing her in addition to occupy-premises in Newark owned by the parties hereto under conditions referred to in the decree. We are in accord with the findings and opinion of the Court of Chancery, with the exception that the decree should be modified so as to provide for a payment to complainant of $20 per week instead of $25 per week. The decree appealed from is so modified and as modified is affirmed.

For■ modification — The Chief-Justice, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Cons, Wachenfeed, Eastwood, Bubling, Jacobs, Wells, Dill, Feeund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 14.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.2d 180, 142 N.J. Eq. 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-nj-1948.