Shumsky v. Shumsky

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Shumsky v. Shumsky

2 N.J. Misc. 407, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179

DecidedJune 7, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 407 (Shumsky v. Shumsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shumsky v. Shumsky, 2 N.J. Misc. 407, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179 (N.J. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Euchanan, Y. C.

The petition is for annulment of marriage on the ground of existing prior marriage of the wife. Defendant answered, admitting the existing prior marriage, and setting up equitable defenses, but did not appear at the hearing, and her solicitor stated that she had informed him that she did not desire further to contest the case. He was thereupon designated by the court to make active defense.

There was no proof of the fact that the prior husband was living at the time of the ceremony sought to be set aside. There was the admission in the wife’s answer, and the husband testified that his wife had told him so; the latter was [408]*408mere hearsay, and the former is, of eo-urse, insufficient as regards the state’s interest.

The petition'will be dismissed, with costs, including counsel fee of fifty dollars ($50) to- defendant’s solicitor.

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

Euchanan, Y. C.

The petition is for annulment of marriage on the ground of existing prior marriage of the wife. Defendant answered, admitting the existing prior marriage, and setting up equitable defenses, but did not appear at the hearing, and her solicitor stated that she had informed him that she did not desire further to contest the case. He was thereupon designated by the court to make active defense.

There was no proof of the fact that the prior husband was living at the time of the ceremony sought to be set aside. There was the admission in the wife’s answer, and the husband testified that his wife had told him so; the latter was [408]*408mere hearsay, and the former is, of eo-urse, insufficient as regards the state’s interest.

The petition'will be dismissed, with costs, including counsel fee of fifty dollars ($50) to- defendant’s solicitor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 407, 1924 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shumsky-v-shumsky-njch-1924.