Rosecrans v. Rosecrans

145 A. 3, 104 N.J. Eq. 193, 3 Backes 193, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 496
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 4, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 A. 3 (Rosecrans v. Rosecrans) 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
Rosecrans v. Rosecrans, 145 A. 3, 104 N.J. Eq. 193, 3 Backes 193, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 496 (N.J. 1929).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The present respondent, Paul C. Rosecrans, filed his petition in the court of chancery asking a divorce from his wife on the grounds of desertion and extreme cruelty and also adultery. The case was heard before Vice-Chancellor Baekes, who advised a decree of divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and desertion. From the decree entered in accordance with that advice Mrs. Rosecrans has appealed.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the appeal satisfies us that the finding of the vice-chancellor from the proofs submitted to him, was entirely justified, and that for this reason the decree advised by him should be affirmed.

At the opening of the case Mr. McCarter applied for the allowance of a counsel fee to his client.

It is the uniform practice in eases of divorce to allow the wife a counsel fee when an appeal is taken by her from a decree divorcing her from'her husband.

*194 Pursuant to this practice a counsel fee of $200 will be awarded to her.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchaed, Ka-LISCH, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LlOYD, VAN BUSKIEK, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, Deae, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Related

Cornell v. Cornell
166 A. 815 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 A. 3, 104 N.J. Eq. 193, 3 Backes 193, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosecrans-v-rosecrans-nj-1929.