Tate v. Tate

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Tate v. Tate

26 N.J. Eq. 55

DecidedFebruary 15, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.J. Eq. 55 (Tate v. Tate) 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

Tate v. Tate, 26 N.J. Eq. 55 (N.J. Ct. App. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The only evidence in this cause is the testimony of the complainant himself. It is the settled rule of this court that a divorce a vinculo will not be granted on the testimony of the complainant alone, as to the cause of divorce. Woodworth v. Woodworth, 6 C. E. Green 251; Palmer v. Palmer, 7 C. E. Green 88. But, apart from the rule, the complainant swears that he was married to the defendant, that he supported her for about four years after the marriage, and that for five years last past his wife has deserted him, and that her desertion, for all that time, has been willful, continued and obstinate, and without any just cause, whatever. The circumstances of the alleged desertion are not sworn to, but the fact only. This is not sufficient. Rogers v. Rogers, 3 C. E. Green 445 ; Test v. Test, 4 C. E. Green 342; Leaning v. Leaning, 10 C. E. Green 241.

The order for publication was published, and a copy of it mailed. This is not in accordance with the requirements of the rules of the court on the subject. Rules 24, 25, 26.

The master has not observed the directions of the 159th rule.

Thé decree of divorce must be denied, and the bill dismissed.

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

The Chancellor.

The only evidence in this cause is the testimony of the complainant himself. It is the settled rule of this court that a divorce a vinculo will not be granted on the testimony of the complainant alone, as to the cause of divorce. Woodworth v. Woodworth, 6 C. E. Green 251; Palmer v. Palmer, 7 C. E. Green 88. But, apart from the rule, the complainant swears that he was married to the defendant, that he supported her for about four years after the marriage, and that for five years last past his wife has deserted him, and that her desertion, for all that time, has been willful, continued and obstinate, and without any just cause, whatever. The circumstances of the alleged desertion are not sworn to, but the fact only. This is not sufficient. Rogers v. Rogers, 3 C. E. Green 445 ; Test v. Test, 4 C. E. Green 342; Leaning v. Leaning, 10 C. E. Green 241.

The order for publication was published, and a copy of it mailed. This is not in accordance with the requirements of the rules of the court on the subject. Rules 24, 25, 26.

The master has not observed the directions of the 159th rule.

Thé decree of divorce must be denied, and the bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.J. Eq. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-tate-njch-1875.