O'Neill v. O'Neill

12 A.2d 839, 127 N.J. Eq. 278, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 611
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 25, 1940·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery denying the application of the complainant wife for . an increase of alimony. At the foot of the decree provision is made that either party, contingent upon a change of circumstances of either, may seek a modification of the decree in the future.

On the sparse record before us we conclude that the finding of the learned advisory master had proper regard for the condition and station in life of the complainant and the ability of the defendant to pay. We are in accord with the conclusion at which he arrived.

The decree will be affirmed.

For affirmance — Parker, Case, Bodine, Persicie, Porter, Ueteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Hague, JJ. 11.

For modification — Donges, Heher, JJ. 2.

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

O'Neill v. O'Neill, 12 A.2d 839, 127 N.J. Eq. 278, 1940 N.J. LEXIS 611 (N.J. 1940).

12 A.2d 839 (O'Neill v. O'Neill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mani v. Mani
869 A.2d 904 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2005)
Hnath v. Hnath
136 A.2d 286 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Turi v. Turi
112 A.2d 278 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)