Matthews v. Matthews
This text of 108 A. 926 (Matthews v. Matthews) 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.
Opinion
The suit was for divorce on account of alleged desertion. Vice-Chancellor Backes, who heard the case below, after examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that petitioner had not shown that she was entitled, under the rules laid down in this state, to the divorce prayed; and, accordingly, dismissed the petition. Our own examination leads to a similar result. The decree of the court of chancery is therefore affirmed. .
For affirmance — Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Williams, Ackerson — 7.
For reversal — Bergen, Minturn, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor — 5.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
108 A. 926, 91 N.J. Eq. 149, 6 Stock. 149, 1919 N.J. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-matthews-nj-1919.