Moon v. Moon

43 N.J. Eq. 403
New Jersey Court of Chancery·Decided October 15, 1887·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Bird, Y. C.

After a good deal of attention to this case, I am quite clear that the motion to set aside the order allowing the petitioner to prosecute his suit in forma pauperis ought to prevail. And I am satisfied that the discretionary power given to the court by the statute (Rev. 319 § 33), can be exercised in revoking such an order as well as in making one.

I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner ought to be ordered to pay alimony to the defendant. As the case now [404] stands before me I am justified in this. Since he is doing nothing towards her support, he can .do something towards enabling her to make defence to his suit.

I will advise that he pay $2 per week to her, or to her solicitor, at the termination of each and every week from and after the 1st' day of January, A. D. 1886. I will not advise a counsel fee at this stage. The petitioner is entitled to costs.

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

Moon v. Moon, 43 N.J. Eq. 403 (N.J. Ct. App. 1887).

43 N.J. Eq. 403 (Moon v. Moon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McClure v. McClure
99 N.J. Eq. 470 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1926)