Worden v. Worden
New York Court of Chancery
Bill for divorce a mensa et thoro, on the £ There had been a reference to a master to re rary alimony and an advance to counsel; a the report now came before the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:—If the answer be true, the complainant has no just cause of complaint against her husband.
*388The letters, copies of which are subjoined to the answer, written only four or five months before the filing of the bill, are strongly corroborative of the answer. They speak a language very different from that of complaint for abusive and cruel and inhuman treatment. It is not a matter of course in every case, whatever may be the complexion of it, to make an order for temporary alimony and for an advance of money to enable the wife to prosecute the suit; and this would seem to be a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- De Vide v. De VideAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Countz v. CountzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1875
- Griffin v. GriffinNew York Supreme Court · 1862
- Solomon v. SolomonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Glasser v. GlasserNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.