Miscia v. Miscia

122 A. 823, 95 N.J. Eq. 260, 10 Stock. 260, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 727
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedNovember 19, 1923
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 A. 823 (Miscia v. Miscia) 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
Miscia v. Miscia, 122 A. 823, 95 N.J. Eq. 260, 10 Stock. 260, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 727 (N.J. 1923).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill in this case was filed by a husband against his wife, praying a decree of divorce upon the ground of adultery committed by her. The hearing resulted in a decree in his [261]*261favor, and the defendant has appealed upon two grounds, each of which, we think, is without merit. The first is that the evidence submitted on the hearing in the court of chancery was insufficient to justify a finding of adultery on the part of the wife.

A recital of the facts proved in the case which support 'the allegations of the petition would serve no good purpose. It is sufficient to say that, in our opinion, they are convincing of the truth of the charge laid against the defendant.

The only other ground of appeal is that the court of chan•cery, after adjudging the right of the husband to a divorce, awarded the custody of the young children of these parties -to the wife, and. having done that, fixed the sum of $8 per week as an allowance to be made for their support and to be paid by the petitioner to the defendant; which sum, it is now contended before us, is plainly insufficient for the purpose to which it is to be devoted. But, assuming the fact to be as the appellant claims, the insufficiency of the allowance affords no ground for reversing the decree, for the reason that, after fixing the amount, it was provided therein that a modification in this respect might be applied for at any time in the court of' chancery, and that such modification would 'be made upon good cause shown. If the allowance be, as the appellant claims, insufficient for the support of the children, her proper course is to apply to the court of chancery to have it increased.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisci-i, Black, Katzenbach, White, Gardner, .Ackerson, Van Buskirk—10. For reversed—None.

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

Related

Oliver v. Oliver
13 A.2d 310 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A. 823, 95 N.J. Eq. 260, 10 Stock. 260, 1923 N.J. LEXIS 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miscia-v-miscia-nj-1923.