Tomaini v. Tomaini

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Tomaini v. Tomaini

135 A. 801, 100 N.J. Eq. 555, 15 Stock. 555, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 659

DecidedJanuary 31, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A. 801 (Tomaini v. Tomaini) 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

Tomaini v. Tomaini, 135 A. 801, 100 N.J. Eq. 555, 15 Stock. 555, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 659 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill in this case was filed by the complainant, Edna Tomaini, against her husband, alleging that he had abandoned her without justifiable cause, and prajdng a decree that he be compelled to support her. The defendant having been brought into court, an application was then made to the court to compel him to support the complainant pendente lite, and an order to that effect was made accordingly. Erom this order the defendant has appealed. At the hearing of the appeal, however, he was not present, either personally or by counsel, and no explaiiation of such failure or excuse therefor has been submitted to us.

In this situation the appeal will be considered as having been abandoned, and the order brought up by it will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenohard, Min-turn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskiric, MoGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill in this case was filed by the complainant, Edna Tomaini, against her husband, alleging that he had abandoned her without justifiable cause, and prajdng a decree that he be compelled to support her. The defendant having been brought into court, an application was then made to the court to compel him to support the complainant pendente lite, and an order to that effect was made accordingly. Erom this order the defendant has appealed. At the hearing of the appeal, however, he was not present, either personally or by counsel, and no explaiiation of such failure or excuse therefor has been submitted to us.

In this situation the appeal will be considered as having been abandoned, and the order brought up by it will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee-Justice, Trenohard, Min-turn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbaoh, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskiric, MoGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A. 801, 100 N.J. Eq. 555, 15 Stock. 555, 1927 N.J. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomaini-v-tomaini-nj-1927.