Rushmore v. Rushmore

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Rushmore v. Rushmore

176 A. 142, 117 N.J. Eq. 451, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 667

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 10, 1935·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

We concur in the conclusion of the advisory master that the evidence establishes an abandonment of respondent by appellant under circumstances entitling her to separate maintenance. The allegation, made by appellant, that respondent has been guilty of a willful, continued and obstinate desertion, is not sustained by the proofs.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

We concur in the conclusion of the advisory master that the evidence establishes an abandonment of respondent by appellant under circumstances entitling her to separate maintenance. The allegation, made by appellant, that respondent has been guilty of a willful, continued and obstinate desertion, is not sustained by the proofs.

The decree is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Peeskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Deae, Wells, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Rushmore v. Rushmore, 176 A. 142, 117 N.J. Eq. 451, 1935 N.J. LEXIS 667 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

176 A. 142 (Rushmore v. Rushmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related