Legal Opinion
George v. George
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided November 19, 1941PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Herr, A. M.
This is a separate maintenance suit brought quasi in rem under R. S. 2:50-39, 40, and R. S. 2:29-88 et seq.; N. J. S. A. 2:50-39, 4-0, and N. J. S. A. 2:29-88 et seq. Pennsylvania is the matrimonial domicile of the parties and continues to be the domicile of the complainant. She was abandoned there by the defendant on August 2d, 1940. Since then he has neglected to maintain and provide for her, and has kept his whereabouts concealed, so that she has been *42precluded from bringing suit against Mm for support in personam in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; 24…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Pennington v. Fourth National Bank of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Artman v. ArtmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Lynde v. LyndeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
- Swetland v. SwetlandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1930
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Zouck v. ZouckCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Boettiger v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1958
- State v. JamesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Barney E. Sachs v. Margheritta C. SachsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1959
- Johnson v. DavisNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.